If faith was blind belief, why would it be of such importance?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: new_here

That is not what religion means or is though.

I don't wish to argue semantics with you, my friend. Define it as you wish, but in any case, the topic is Faith and not Religion.

Just to be clear, I'm just talking about my own personal faith and connection to God. I'm not attempting to tell others to believe as I do. It is MY Truth.

I'm always curious about those who subscribe to the 'religion' of Atheism, though. How they seek to denigrate and insult those who speak of their personal faith. The topic was posed, I said my peace (which included a criticism of organized religion) and those of the Atheist faith pile on with disparaging remarks and attempts to persuade me to their own belief system, when I've done nothing of the sort. What gives? Again I ask, why does my personal Faith vex you so? "The lady Athiest doth protest too much!"

What's wrong with respecting my right to my own beliefs while saying, "This is the way I see it..." ???

But if it is only your truth, and you know it is not reasonable or even matches what other people who make similar claims say, then why share it? Or even why accept it? You know very well that others make claims that you disagree with. This is the problem with faith. It can justify any belief. So why rely on it?

What about the possibility that she saw a thread about faith, and commented here with the hope of sharing the joy her faith brings her, with like-minded people, only to end-up being dogged by folks whom reject her ideas?

If she has spent any time at all here, that could not have been a realistic expectation.

ATS is a melting pot of views, and there is no shortage of ppl who will express them on any given subject.

If that's truly the case, then she can still take comfort.

There is no reason to assume that there aren't ppl who felt good having read the OP.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.

By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow

I am certain that there is a god.

The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.

The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.

Hi Woodcarver.

Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.

Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?

Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL

We cannot prove there is not teapot a revolving around Jupiter. But I think any reasonable person can conclude with 100% certainty that there isn’t a teapot revolving around Jupiter.

Sorry: don't see it that way.
How is it possible to be certain of something that is uncertain?

Because reserving judgment on something so unlikely is also a form of conviction. One has to have faith in the mere possibility that someone making the claim of a god might be right.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

So your claim is that it is unlikely there is a God?

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.

By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow

I am certain that there is a god.

The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.

The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.

Hi Woodcarver.

Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.

Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?

Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL

Sure. And that is why i differentiate between faith based claims that are backed up by clear observations and those that are pulled out of people’s imaginations.

a reply to: Mach2

ATS is a melting pot of views, and there is no shortage of ppl who will express them on any given subject.

Except these particular types of threads don't end up in "a melting pot of views". It turns into one big, "you don't have any material proof of a God" and it ends there. The least people could do on here is come up with something more original than that as well as post their own views, but they don't. I've even posed a question to woodcarver on his view on the universe along with it's pattern and order. Did I ever get a reply back? No. All we see is woodcarver's response that he will never leave a thread letting someone believe something that they can't prove materially and it turns in to a yawn fest with no real views or feedback.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

So your claim is that it is unlikely there is a God?

I don’t even believe in the possibility of god, let alone that there is one.

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

So your claim is that it is unlikely there is a God?

I don’t even believe in the possibility of god, let alone that there is one.

I would love to know the mathematical equation you are using to calculate the odds of there being a God at near 0.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

So your claim is that it is unlikely there is a God?

If you are talking about probability, then yes. It is highly unlikely that a god exists. I get to that position by examining all of the evidence that gods exist. Which is zero, so yea, that is unlikely that gods exist. About the same probability as magic fairies, and gnomes.

If there were any evidence, then you wouldn’t need faith.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
If you are talking about probability, then yes. It is highly unlikely that a god exists.

Give me the numbers. Probability is measurable. If you can't give me numbers you are talking belief, akin to faith, not probability.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Mach2

ATS is a melting pot of views, and there is no shortage of ppl who will express them on any given subject.

Except these particular types of threads don't end up in "a melting pot of views". It turns into one big, "you don't have any material proof of a God" and it ends there. The least people could do on here is come up with something more original than that as well as post their own views, but they don't. I've even posed a question to woodcarver on his view on the universe along with it's pattern and order. Did I ever get a reply back? No. All we see is woodcarver's response that he will never leave a thread letting someone believe something that they can't prove materially and it turns in to a yawn fest with no real views or feedback.

I agree. Those who are making the claim need to present the evidence that supports their claim.

All atheists are asking is that you present the proof. Otherwise how did you come to your position of belief? Without evidence? You want to accept something that has no evidence that supports it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I would love to know the mathematical equation you are using to calculate the odds of there being a God at near 0.

I think we've already witnessed and established that they don't have any educated explanations, just boring rejections.

a reply to: Woodcarver

All atheists are asking is that you present the proof. Otherwise how did you come to your position of belief? Without evidence? You want to accept something that has no evidence that supports it.

All of us non-atheists are asking you for one educated view on why you don't believe there is a God. We won't even ask you to prove it just to keep the conversation interesting instead of lame.

a reply to: Woodcarver

My evidence is that life can not come from non life. If you wish to argue evolution then you need to prove life starting from nothing. Attempts to solve that problem have only reinforced that it can not happen.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Woodcarver
If you are talking about probability, then yes. It is highly unlikely that a god exists.

Give me the numbers. Probability is measurable. If you can't give me numbers you are talking belief, akin to faith, not probability.

In order for me to present the numbers, you’ll need to present your evidence. Then we will calculate it’s validity based on it’s merit.

Until you present evidence for the existence of a god, that number will be zero.

The same as if i claim there is a magical dragon in my garage. Without evidence, that claim is unlikely. Right?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Woodcarver
If you are talking about probability, then yes. It is highly unlikely that a god exists.

Give me the numbers. Probability is measurable. If you can't give me numbers you are talking belief, akin to faith, not probability.

In order for me to present the numbers, you’ll need to present your evidence. Then we will calculate it’s validity based on it’s merit.

Until you present evidence for the existence of a god, that number will be zero.

The same as if i claim there is a magical dragon in my garage. Without evidence, that claim is unlikely. Right?

I don't need to present anything. YOU are the one talking probability. That requires numbers. If you have none then you are making a false claim, instead say you have faith there is no God.

a reply to: Woodcarver

The universe is proof that the universe exists.

That sounds like my faith. I made a religion out of living in and interacting with that Universe. Well, not the whole Universe, but what I had the time and means to see, and touch, and listen to and feel.

You would necessarily need to demonstrate that a god created it to make the claim that a god created it.

Now there are people who question the reality of the Universe I live in and experience. They say "quantum this" and "sub atomic particles become as they are observed" and stuff like that.

According to my religion, I do not live in a quantum potential; but rather in a real Universe.

If I throw a piece of bread to a deer, and the deer eats it, then I am real; the deer is real; the bread, the ground, the air that the bread flew through, the time it takes for all that to occur, are all real.

Back in the old days people and animals and plants and rocks and things all existed together. Now it's like I'm forced to be all apologetic about common every day reality. I didn't used to be an apologist for the real.

Now I'm ranting. According to my religion, I am really ranting. No delusion or illusion; the real deal!

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Woodcarver

My evidence is that life can not come from non life. If you wish to argue evolution then you need to prove life starting from nothing. Attempts to solve that problem have only reinforced that it can not happen.

Your evidence is another claim based on what? Your opinion?

You do know that we have created the building blocks of life in a lab. Multiple times. We have also found them floating around in space. RNA is precurser to DNA and we find it out in nature all the time.

You also know that you body is literally made up of non organic molecules right? All the same ones we see in nature? Life is a series of chemical reactions and chemical reactions are completly natural.

Another swing and a miss.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

So your claim is that it is unlikely there is a God?

I don’t even believe in the possibility of god, let alone that there is one.

I would love to know the mathematical equation you are using to calculate the odds of there being a God at near 0.

Its the law of non-contradiction. It’s quite clear that God is a character of literature, a linguistic construct conceived in the minds of men. If god is one thing, he isn’t something else.

originally posted by: Mach2

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: new_here

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: new_here

That is not what religion means or is though.

I don't wish to argue semantics with you, my friend. Define it as you wish, but in any case, the topic is Faith and not Religion.

Just to be clear, I'm just talking about my own personal faith and connection to God. I'm not attempting to tell others to believe as I do. It is MY Truth.

I'm always curious about those who subscribe to the 'religion' of Atheism, though. How they seek to denigrate and insult those who speak of their personal faith. The topic was posed, I said my peace (which included a criticism of organized religion) and those of the Atheist faith pile on with disparaging remarks and attempts to persuade me to their own belief system, when I've done nothing of the sort. What gives? Again I ask, why does my personal Faith vex you so? "The lady Athiest doth protest too much!"

What's wrong with respecting my right to my own beliefs while saying, "This is the way I see it..." ???

But if it is only your truth, and you know it is not reasonable or even matches what other people who make similar claims say, then why share it? Or even why accept it? You know very well that others make claims that you disagree with. This is the problem with faith. It can justify any belief. So why rely on it?

What about the possibility that she saw a thread about faith, and commented here with the hope of sharing the joy her faith brings her, with like-minded people, only to end-up being dogged by folks whom reject her ideas?

If she has spent any time at all here, that could not have been a realistic expectation.

ATS is a melting pot of views, and there is no shortage of ppl who will express them on any given subject.

If that's truly the case, then she can still take comfort.

There is no reason to assume that there aren't ppl who felt good having read the OP.

Good points.
No argument here.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Woodcarver

The universe is proof that the universe exists.

That sounds like my faith. I made a religion out of living in and interacting with that Universe. Well, not the whole Universe, but what I had the time and means to see, and touch, and listen to and feel.

You would necessarily need to demonstrate that a god created it to make the claim that a god created it.

Now there are people who question the reality of the Universe I live in and experience. They say "quantum this" and "sub atomic particles become as they are observed" and stuff like that.

According to my religion, I do not live in a quantum potential; but rather in a real Universe.

If I throw a piece of bread to a deer, and the deer eats it, then I am real; the deer is real; the bread, the ground, the air that the bread flew through, the time it takes for all that to occur, are all real.

Back in the old days people and animals and plants and rocks and things all existed together. Now it's like I'm forced to be all apologetic about common every day reality. I didn't used to be an apologist for the real.

Now I'm ranting. According to my religion, I am really ranting. No delusion or illusion; the real deal!

You are the first to bring up quantum anything.

As far as i can tell, people, animal, plants, and rocks still exist together.

Why would you accept your religion over demonstratable and reproducible science?

That just seems silly