It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nikola014
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Nikola014
And why is that? I'd just like an explanation of how faith is positive and linked inextricably to our 'future', whatever you mean by that.
Try to imagine a man without faith.
A man without faith it not concern for the future.How much people in difficult moments, turns to faith? Well I can tell you a lot.Because faith gives us one extra strength to fight and it's help us i the difficult moments.That's why i believe if the man lose his faith,he lost his future.
The point is,faith give us hope for better tomorrow and i strongly believe faith is one of the most important thing in human life.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
It's not really a big leap of faith. We have no evidence to show that it is not the real world even if we cannot be certain that it is.
Leaps of faith are purely relative. From where I'm sitting, you're taking a huge leap of faith assuming there's no God.
Nope, I just acknowledge the blind spot in the middle of my field of view. I can, however, verify my observations. As flawed as our brain's interpretation of sense data can be, as flawed as our perceptions may be, we can test them. If you can't believe something is really there, you test that it is. Simple as that.
inevitably, by pure random chance, things won't be that simple,
and religious beliefs stem from that in so many ways.
If we cannot have a consensus, we cannot have a truth.
Some post modernists would say there is no truth.
I would argue, in some post-post modernist f-storm, that absolute truth is true with some faith. However many people that may make angry, it works out pretty well when you think of it.
...no, I have no reason to think that they won't. There's a difference between 'faith' and not considering an incredibly unlikely alternative.
eh, I'm not so sure. I mean we never expected Voyager would suddenly slow down at the edge of the solar system. You said earlier that when new data comes you simply believe it.
I mean, from my own experiences, I guess I'm doing the same with God. Only I've not gotten any new info. Perhaps I have strange faith. I talk to God through the random. set a system, ask an answer, and take in on faith that's the answer. I've done things based off that from anything ranging from where to go to college based off the wind, to weather or not to go somewhere based off the light. I have faith that truly random things still come from God. Now so far it's worked out profusely well. But that's faith. And such repeated experiments have always led me well.
...no, it's not. I don't have any faith, I have skepticism and doubt. You're simply believing without evidence, I'm making a conclusion based upon reasonable evidence.
Just seems like faith in a different thing. Something obviously more "real" from the human perspective. But then again, if something could only see and live in dark matter and not our world, maybe it would have a different perspective.
I have skepticism and doubt on plenty of things, including my own religion.
Questioning literal 7 days of creation has led me to conclude that the first 2 Genesis accounts are from two different perspectives. God, going across the ages and the days going by for him, and Man, observing time linearly and from his own life. So by questioning young Earth creationism I've come to the conclusion to how evolution still works with creation.
God says "F the time line", man is bound by it.... for now. You are doing the same, only you've closed down your mind to any possible chances that what you believe is false.
Like with God. Skepticism can only go so far. Eventually you have to make a decision.
You've decided on a path that leads to oblivion and no reward,
I've made a decision that keeps my logical and critical thought, but has the rewards of life afterwards, if in fact my faith is proven true. I'm not saying either of us are wrong, I'm just being cliche lol. One has a reward the other doesn't.
...it's not faith. It's observable, testable, and in constant doubt. Anything I believe could be changed with a reasonable amount of evidence.
That whole statement can be applied to my religious beliefs. So I really don't see how it's not faith. A creature existing in the dark matter spectrum of the universe and cannot observe us probably has the same perspective of our lives. It's all still faith.
...but I have no faith that gravity is constantly the way it is, I merely accept that our only observations of gravity have shown that its effects are measurable, consistent, and any changes can be accounted for as interactions with other portions of the universe. If a new piece of data comes in, I incorporate without problem. It's called science, the place where we don't make absolute claims.
Once again, the same is true for my religious beliefs. Watch:
...but I have no faith that my views of God is constantly the way it is, I merely accept that my only observations of God have shown that its effects are visible, consistent, and any changes can be accounted for as interactions with other portions of the scripture. If a new piece of scripture or word comes in, I incorporate without problem. It's called religion,
I would end without your own ending, because for both our views, absolute truths are for the now, but adjustable if we find we are wrong. In the end, it's faith in our own correctness and right-ness until proven wrong. One just has a reward, and can live with the other. Basically my faith is perfectly workable with modern science's views, but your faith in God is not workable with my views. Put down your stubbornness and maybe you'd have a reward at the end. If it's not true, then who cares?
No, my argument is that everything is faith. So you might as well do some homework and choose the one with the most rewards. Believing without evidence is not really that idiotic.
Unless its based off nothing by your own observations. Then its insanity.
I wasn't really willing to believe that anything I thought supernatural was real until about 20 other people said the same thing in some Friday night gathering occurred. Which, btw, I took on faith to go to that location at that time on nothing more than the angle of the light in front of me. It was insane until it clearly brought me to a better place with my faith. I repeat such insane adventures with the same results. Faith, see? No different really. You have faith in the scientific process. I do to, but I have faith in other things as well.
No, I assume it. I don't have faith because I'm open to the possibility that they're not or not entirely.
huh. And assumption is faith. That's why its an assumption. You belief based off some experience you have faith is true and you trust yourself that its true, which is faith.
And I'm not giving this freely, so it's clearly not faith.
I doubt you would be this forthcoming if you didn't have faith in your own truths. Clearly it is.
We've gone over this, my position is that I do not believe. I have no belief in the absence of deities! Dear sweet Aunt May and sweet Christmas, how many times do I have to go over this?
You do have a belief in the absents of deities.
You have made a choice to either believe it or not.
I'd like to provide a comparison: A lack of belief in a deity is like being bald. An active disbelief in a deity is like shaving your head.
I do not assume there to be no deity, I merely find no compelling reason to say there is one. It is not an assumption to not put forth the existence of a being without evidence.
...so you're saying it stems from ignorance?
Truth is not based upon consensus.
Well, they'd be highly mistaken.
And how does that work out well at all? Please, explain it instead of merely alluding to it working out.
Well, I don't simply believe it. I have to verify the data. If it's verified, I can't help but expect it. For no, there's no reason for me to acknowledge the existence of any of the multitudes of deities claimed to exist.
...that's not experimentation, that's anecdotal. There's no control, no constraint to prevent experimental interference. Hell, you're experimenting on yourself, which is the ultimate no-no in science...though the reason isn't a matter of danger, it's a matter of bias.
...but all I have to work off of is all I can work off of. It's a tautology, but it's all I have. You don't make claims outside of that which you can support. It's why I'd never hazard a guess at fixing a car or playing piano.
...and yet you're about to apply the cognitive dissonance technique known as 'day-age creationism'.
And yet you're still shoving a deity in for no reason at all. You're also ignoring that the two accounts are contradictory in the orders of creation and that the first account is just entirely wrong on nearly everything.
...I thought you just acknowledged that I say I'll take in any new data. If you provide evidence, I'm open to accepting your claim. Simple as that.
Yes, that's why science has 'error bars' and 'standards of evidence'.
Pascal's wager allusion? I'm sorry, but the reward is living.
Yep, Pascal's wager. It's a silly wager, because you're discounting that you may be on the path of believing in the wrong deity and pissing off the true one.
Except that it doesn't. You accept the existence of a deity without any reasonable evidence, so you're clearly not to concerned with evidence with regard to that question. I'm also guessing you accept significant portions of the Bible, even though they are riddled with errors in history, science, and morality.
And yet it's faith because you're accepting the deity without evidence and you're relying on scripture that is only considered true if you accept that deity's existence...which makes a pretty circular argument.
I'm just going to stop you there. Insane asylum.
Wait...what? I'm sorry, but if you're believing without evidence...then what else do you have?
...and yet all you have are anecdotes, while I have the computer you're using as well as pretty much every other item in your dwelling as support for the reliability of science.
...no, faith is belief without evidence. I trust that my observations are consistent.
So...you merely claim something about me.
Again...NO. This will be my last post to you because I've repeatedly explained this to you and yet you keep telling me something that is contrary to all ideas of logic.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Einstein is really kind of a distraction from the larger point:
Arguments that reference "20th century atheists" are intellectually dishonest and weak tools to bolster theism.