so religion claims faith, but is faith a fact/real?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

You are slagging off atheists once again. Your "faith" that atheists don't understand the thological concepts of Christianty demontrates how blind faith really is. Please don't hide in your Christianty - it is your own personal conduct in question.

Philokalia

Well yeah it was a cheap shot, that was kind of the point. though some atheists have a knowledge fo these things, its just that the vast majority dont. But that was something interesting.

Atheists not knowing Christianity demonstrates a Christian's faith in their religion is blind....

That is some off logic there.

This is clearly just guess work. A lot of athiests would have had a religious up bringing or would have been religious when children.

Also since when is 'christianity' the only religion? There are and have been thousands, do you know all about them?

Seems par for your course that you see a point in making cheap shots. As is your fallacious use of arguments from an imagined majority.

It seeps quite superior of you to "know" what atheists know.

We have discussed your foundations for belief several times now and the evidential value you attach to hear-say, authority and revelation in your own faith-bound beliefs. If there was hard evidence, you would not need faith to justify those beliefs, would you?

RationalAtheist

Since when is a cheap shot fallacious? I think you mean a bit unnecessary, which I will admit yeah it was, though its true and it demonstrated my point in responce to the OP. I suppose if you want to divert the thread though you can though seems unncessarily inane, it was an off the cuff comment I made, nothing more.

And no I will not be party to you redefining this thread. Nice try though.

This is clearly just guess work. A lot of athiests would have had a religious up bringing or would have been religious when children.

Also since when is 'christianity' the only religion? There are and have been thousands, do you know all about them?

tenaka2

I can only speak from personal experience and what I have witnessed, i might very well be wrong though I sincerely doubt it. And whoever said Christianity was the only religion?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Seems par for your course that you see a point in making cheap shots. As is your fallacious use of arguments from an imagined majority.

It seeps quite superior of you to "know" what atheists know.

We have discussed your foundations for belief several times now and the evidential value you attach to hear-say, authority and revelation in your own faith-bound beliefs. If there was hard evidence, you would not need faith to justify those beliefs, would you?

Philokalia

Since when is a cheap shot fallacious? I think you mean a bit unnecessary, which I will admit yeah it was, though its true and it demonstrated my point in responce to the OP. I suppose if you want to divert the thread though you can though seems unncessarily inane, it was an off the cuff comment I made, nothing more.

And no I will not be party to you redefining this thread. Nice try though.

This is clearly just guess work. A lot of athiests would have had a religious up bringing or would have been religious when children.

Also since when is 'christianity' the only religion? There are and have been thousands, do you know all about them?

tenaka2

I can only speak from personal experience and what I have witnessed, i might very well be wrong though I sincerely doubt it. And whoever said Christianity was the only religion?

The fallacious part of the argument wasn't the cheap shot, it was the imaginary majority.

The fallacious part of the argument wasn't the cheap shot, it was the imaginary majority.

Hubadubalubahu

When I have it demonstrated that atheists have a wide understanding and comprehension of Christian doctrine I'll recant my statement.

I can only speak from personal experience and what I have witnessed, i might very well be wrong though I sincerely doubt it. And whoever said Christianity was the only religion?

Philokalia

Well you have already stated that athiests no little about christianity, but if your going to argue that then athiests should also know all about all other religions, Islam, hinduism, Odinism, Jedi etc.

As you are making this argument, I can only assume you know about all other religions.

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

The fallacious part of the argument wasn't the cheap shot, it was the imaginary majority.

Philokalia

When I have it demonstrated that atheists have a wide understanding and comprehension of Christian doctrine I'll recant my statement.

Just clearing things up.

Well you have already stated that athiests no little about christianity, but if your going to argue that then athiests should also know all about all other religions, Islam, hinduism, Odinism, Jedi etc.

As you are making this argument, I can only assume you know about all other religions.

tenaka2

Huh its as if you are trying to put into my mouth words which I never said or implied.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Well you have already stated that athiests no little about christianity, but if your going to argue that then athiests should also know all about all other religions, Islam, hinduism, Odinism, Jedi etc.

As you are making this argument, I can only assume you know about all other religions.

Philokalia

Huh its as if you are trying to put into my mouth words which I never said or implied.

You said athiests don't know about christianity. Why should they? Nothing makes christianity better or more valid then any other religion.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Well you have already stated that athiests no little about christianity, but if your going to argue that then athiests should also know all about all other religions, Islam, hinduism, Odinism, Jedi etc.

As you are making this argument, I can only assume you know about all other religions.

Philokalia

Huh its as if you are trying to put into my mouth words which I never said or implied.

He is not saying you did say or imply that. Please re-read.

You said athiests don't know about christianity. Why should they? Nothing makes christianity better or more valid then any other religion.

tenaka2

Its as if I made a comment in relation to the thread giving an example that I don't have that much faith in atheists to understand or have prior knowledge of Christian doctrine, that is of the orthodox variety (Includes all communions). And thats exactly what I meant, but I would suggest if a person wants to discuss and dialogue with Christians they ought have some basic knowledge of it. That seems commonsense.

Since when is a cheap shot fallacious? I think you mean a bit unnecessary, which I will admit yeah it was, though its true and it demonstrated my point in responce to the OP. I suppose if you want to divert the thread though you can though seems unncessarily inane, it was an off the cuff comment I made, nothing more.

And no I will not be party to you redefining this thread. Nice try though.

Philokalia

I never said it was fallacious. I said it was par for your course. Your argument from majority is fallacious though. Please understand what is written and do try not to read too much into things!

Are you keeping the thread on-track with your admitted cheap shots, off the cuff comments and fallacies? Nice try! I notice you fail to comment on my relevent point on belief vs. faith there in keeping this thread on-track.

Its as if I made a comment in relation to the thread giving an example that I don't have that much faith in atheists to understand or have prior knowledge of Christian doctrine, that is of the orthodox variety (Includes all communions). And thats exactly what I meant, but I would suggest if a person wants to discuss and dialogue with Christians they ought have some basic knowledge of it. That seems commonsense.

Philokalia

If a person has basic knowledge, then why would they need to "dialogue" with an adherent? Did the orthodox church push you away until you had gained an understanding of it?

Such a tactic would seem like either elistism, or some inability to discuss things, rather than common sense.

If a person has basic knowledge, then why would they need to "dialogue" with an adherent? Did the orthodox church push you away until you had gained an understanding of it?

Such a tactic would seem like either elistism, or some inability to discuss things, rather than common sense.

RationalAtheist

Well the Orthodox church didn't push me away, I learnt and was accepted. but I can't see you actually responding to what I said and saying it was wrong, just giving your opinion of what I said and saying it is wrong. Wells thats fine.

Well the Orthodox church didn't push me away, I learnt and was accepted. but I can't see you actually responding to what I said and saying it was wrong, just giving your opinion of what I said and saying it is wrong. Wells thats fine.

Philokalia

Sure. Our opinions are only that - both of our's. It's a good reason for me to discount faith and rely on reason and evidence instead - to justify my own opinions.

Your experience gained in orthodox Christianity is at odds with your "commonsense" view of sending people away to learn about a particular religion first. This seems like a hypocrisy, but perhaps you are used to using hypocrisy along with your cheap shots and logical fallacies in your "dialogues".

Sure. Our opinions are only that - both of our's. It's a good reason for me to discount faith and rely on reason and evidence instead - to justify my own opinions.

Your experience gained in orthodox Christianity is at odds with your "commonsense" view of sending people away to learn about a particular religion first. This seems like a hypocrisy, but perhaps you are used to using hypocrisy along with your cheap shots and logical fallacies in your "dialogues".

RationalAtheist

Sending people away to learn about a religion first? huh. That being said hypocritical? You try to stretch any attack into a conversation don't you?

Sending people away to learn about a religion first? huh. That being said hypocritical? You try to stretch any attack into a conversation don't you?

Philokalia

I am relating your own personal experience with the orthodox church to your stated view that people should learn about a religion before discussing it. If you think it is an attack, then you surely can not see the hypocrisy of your statements.

I am relating your own personal experience with the orthodox church to your stated view that people should learn about a religion before discussing it. If you think it is an attack, then you surely can not see the hypocrisy of your statements.

RationalAtheist

And you know of my experience with the church how? On second thought don't answer. and I see no hypocrisy, I made a point which hasn't been shown to be demonstrably false (and I even said if it can be shown atheists have a wide understanding and comprehension of Christianity I would take back what I said, because honestly there are other examples which could be given to my original post) and you have just seemed to nit pick almost everything I've said and then accuse me of various dsihonest attacks and the like which you haven't adequately demonstrated.

Anyway RA, haven't we made this thread miss its point long enough>? me responding to your inane comments, and oyu just being yourself?

And you know of my experience with the church how? On second thought don't answer. and I see no hypocrisy, I made a point which hasn't been shown to be demonstrably false (and I even said if it can be shown atheists have a wide understanding and comprehension of Christianity I would take back what I said, because honestly there are other examples which could be given to my original post) and you have just seemed to nit pick almost everything I've said and then accuse me of various dsihonest attacks and the like which you haven't adequately demonstrated.

Anyway RA, haven't we made this thread miss its point long enough>? me responding to your inane comments, and oyu just being yourself?

Philokalia

I asked you a question about if the orthodox church sent you away to learn about it first and you said they didn't! Can't you remember what you just typed?

Well the Orthodox church didn't push me away, I learnt and was accepted.

Philokalia

If you are waiting for all atheists to group together (or the majority of them anyway) to express their own understanding of Christian doctrine to you, then your ideals seem somewhat far-fetched. You still seem to inabit a view of intellectual superiority in demeaning the knowledge of others without any examples to back you up.

You admit that you make "cheap-shots" - that you claim were "a bit unneccessary" yourself, then accuse me of nit-picking because you are obviously unable to properly explain them.

I think the thrust of the thread is being demonstrated. The value of faith-based beliefs (i.e. your "faith" that atheists don't know about Christinity) is highly questionable and has no real basis. Your argument that someone should disprove your words is yet another logical fallacy, akin to the invisible teapot.

I am being myself - who else could I be?

Awww yeah.

RA I think you are reading too much into my post. That being said you haven't actually responded to anything I said in my first post other than an off the cuff comment which even if false doesn't actually show my original answer false. Your desperately clinging here and to say it is unbecoming would be generous.

RA I think you are reading too much into my post. That being said you haven't actually responded to anything I said in my first post other than an off the cuff comment which even if false doesn't actually show my original answer false. Your desperately clinging here and to say it is unbecoming would be generous.

Philokalia

PO'K, If you don't think I've responded to anything you said in your first post, then I don't think you're reading enough into my posts.

Your unfounded accusations of my "desparate clinging" and your "generous" "unbecomming" comment are only more examples of your evasion, insult and failure to comprehend or respond appropriately to discussion. Isn't it time for bed yet?

PO'K, If you don't think I've responded to anything you said in your first post, then I don't think you're reading enough into my posts.

Your unfounded accusations of my "desparate clinging" and your "generous" "unbecomming" comment are only more examples of your evasion, insult and failure to comprehend or respond appropriately to discussion. Isn't it time for bed yet?

RationalAtheist

The thing is you haven't at any point. Now you can either keep reaching for insults or actually discuss, something I would note you cannot do and don't have a good history of.

The thing is you haven't at any point. Now you can either keep reaching for insults or actually discuss, something I would note you cannot do and don't have a good history of.

Philokalia

You can say that, while ignoring my points. What insults have I reached for?

My experience of our discussion history is that you go to bed when things get too difficult for you.

You can say that, while ignoring my points. What insults have I reached for?

My experience of our discussion history is that you go to bed when things get too difficult for you.

RationalAtheist

That or I just like to watch law and order.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

You can say that, while ignoring my points. What insults have I reached for?

My experience of our discussion history is that you go to bed when things get too difficult for you.

Philokalia

That or I just like to watch law and order.

Whatever takes your mind off the cognitive dissonance.

Whatever takes your mind off the cognitive dissonance.

RationalAtheist

Ah yes how could I forget that :roll:

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Whatever takes your mind off the cognitive dissonance.

Philokalia

Ah yes how could I forget that :roll:

By watching Law and Order?

By watching Law and Order?

RationalAtheist

By not wasting my life on a forum.

By not wasting my life on a forum.

Philokalia

Go for it then! Please don't let me stop you "not wasting your life" on a forum.

RA I think you are reading too much into my post. That being said you haven't actually responded to anything I said in my first post other than an off the cuff comment which even if false doesn't actually show my original answer false. Your desperately clinging here and to say it is unbecoming would be generous.

Philokalia

Won't your god get angry over you addressing the sun god?

people will find a way to believe whatever they want to believe even if there is no evidence for it. religious people call it "faith"

personally i try to run from that way of thinking like a plague, i find it quite sad.

Faith = non thinking.

Communist_Soul

Faith = non thinking.

Communist_Soul

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

Faith = non thinking.

sonicare

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

Faith = non thinking.

sonicare

I disagree with faith = non-thinking too.

But I also disagree that faith is accepting something in the absence of definitive proof, or even just a strong belief, and find your "dark matter" analogy faulty.

Is there faith in dark matter, like there is faith in religions?

Dark matter and dark energy are constructs that help us make sense of our universe, given what we already think we know. I don't find some grim acceptance of these principles, but constant efforts to explain them, understand them, seek evidence to justify, or to refute them and expand our thinking on them. Dark matter and dark energy are scientific hypotheses, rather than certainties. They represent a place-holder for what we don't yet understand, but have a rational basis in scientific exploration.

To my thinking, religious faith is often cited as a virtue - a suspension of judgement and evidential rigour. It is the blind acceptance of dogma. Perhaps that is why you didn't go all the way in describing a strong and evidentiallyjustified belief in dark matter as faith yourself.

Faith = non thinking.

I'm a chemist. I have never seen a proton, neutron or electron, yet I have faith they exists based on physical evidence. Faith is not something that can be defined in black and white terms.

Discussions of this type tend to be dominated by religion vs atheism, but that isn't the only area that involves faith.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

Faith = non thinking.

I disagree with faith = non-thinking too.

But I also disagree that faith is accepting something in the absence of definitive proof, or even just a strong belief, and find your "dark matter" analogy faulty.

Is there faith in dark matter, like there is faith in religions?

Dark matter and dark energy are constructs that help us make sense of our universe, given what we already think we know. I don't find some grim acceptance of these principles, but constant efforts to explain them, understand them, seek evidence to justify, or to refute them and expand our thinking on them. Dark matter and dark energy are scientific hypotheses, rather than certainties. They represent a place-holder for what we don't yet understand, but have a rational basis in scientific exploration.

To my thinking, religious faith is often cited as a virtue - a suspension of judgement and evidential rigour. It is the blind acceptance of dogma. Perhaps that is why you didn't go all the way in describing a strong and evidentiallyjustified belief in dark matter as faith yourself.

[QUOTE="jesuschristmonk"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Not necessarily. Faith just means accepting something in the absence of definitive proof. No one has ever been able to see dark matter, for instance, but there's a strong belief that it exists. It's an attempt to explain some properties of the universe in regards to why galaxies don't fly apart. Apparently 90% of the mass of a galaxy is composed of dark matter. Yet we can not see it or find any evidence of it.sonicare

Of course faith is real even athiest have faith in science.

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

Faith = non thinking.

sonicare

comparing god with dark matter, ok!

the thing is religious faith is not absent of "definitive" proof, but it has no proof at all.

Apparently 90% of the mass of a galaxy is composed of dark matter. Yet we can not see it or find any evidence of it.sonicare

Yeah, faith is a real thing.

Yeah, faith is a real thing.

Necrifer

[QUOTE="sonicare"]Apparently 90% of the mass of a galaxy is composed of dark matter. Yet we can not see it or find any evidence of it.Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="jesuschristmonk"] Except that makes more sense because people are working their asses off to try and find that answer, where as most people don't even wonder if a god or w/e exists, and just go along with w/e they're told.jesuschristmonk

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

Faith = non thinking.

jesuschristmonk

Faith is a real thing...it's just not tangible. Air and gravity aren't tangible either, but they're still real. Also, every person is given a measure of faith...so everybody has faith.

It's just they may have faith in different things. Faith is like a muscle too, the more you exercise it and put stresses on it, the more it will grow, respond, and benefit you.