Atheism indeed requires the practice of faith, unless all is known, there is faith. There is faith always faith in play, it is wired into the mind, as the mind does not exist eternally, at all possible places, at all possible times past, future, and present. Only God wouldn't require faith, as God by definition would posses all possible knowledge at all possible times, at all possible places. Do I KNOW this to be true? No, it is a belief, as it is a product of my human mind. I willingly admit to the practice of faith, I am not in denial like some are about the nature of the human mind. One cannot know the exact future since we are bound by space and time to the moment, hence even the belief in the next moment is an act of faith. Logically, death could come at any moment. So faith is used all the time, every single moment we use faith as a means to move into the next moment with a sense of continuity. Examine each point and time, you will find faith as an essential component. When we go to sleep, we have faith that we will wake up. Imagine someone trying to sleep if they did not believe they would wake up. At the foundation of our mind is faith. Faith in senses, faith in intellect, faith in the reasoning process. Just as different religions argue their faith is the RIGHT faith and the other guy has the WRONG faith, so too atheists argue that their faith in senses, and relativistic logic is RIGHT and other methods are WRONG as it relates to the notion of God, and the concept of absolute reality. Yet, if you dig deep enough, you find faith and circular logic in play with all atheists. Person A asks person B: What time is it? Person B responds: 6:00. Person A asks: How do you know. Person B responds: I looked at my watch. Person A asks: How do you know your watch is correct? Person B responds: I set it by my clock. Person A asks: How do you know your clock is right? Person B responds: I set my clock by the time on my watch.
using your own argument: You cannot provide a proof of those claims without dependency on the senses, intellect, and reasoning abilities, hence the conclusion you draw is 100% circular in nature.
Yes, of course the conclusion is circular, of course, that is my point, as it is based on relativistic logic. We thiests are forced try to lower ourselves to the level of atheists in order to communicate, thus by stooping to the same logical game of atheists we are seen to show the same and exact degree of circular reasoning as the atheists, as the atheist have shown they lack the ability or willingness to practice faith in a power greater than themselves. Too bad you are not able to spend time in our world, as we can so easily spend time in yours. All we do is smile and understand both worlds, while we watch the atheist grind their axeman and practice sour grapes. But as Sheryl Crow says, "If it makes you happy It can't be that bad If it makes you happy Then why the hell are you so sad."
using your own argument: You still cannot provide a proof of those claims without dependency on the senses, intellect, and reasoning abilities, hence the conclusion you draw is 100% circular in nature. You cannot even know according to your "logic" that your conclusion is circular, or not. You cannot know according to your "logic" that there is "a power greater than themselves". Faith requires ...'dependency on the senses, intellect, and reasoning abilities, hence the conclusion drawn is 100% circular in nature.'.... According to your "logic" faith is flawed , as it relies on those things to know it is there. Your argument still fails.
Practically speaking anyone can know that there is a power greater than themselves. Just go surfing and feel the power of the ocean. Try to catch a fly in mid air with your hand. It takes little to realize how powerless we all are. Regarding the failure of my arguments that you describe: I agree, you are correct. My arguments fail, as your arguments fail, as all arguments fail to produce absolute knowledge when they are constructed on a relativistic platform. Until we can begin out belief systems with: Absolute, therefore ___________. We remain in the conditional and changing realm of: If _____________, then _______________. Funny then why people feel so strongly that others are wrong when their own arguments are based in relativistic truths. I agree that faith is as equally flawed as your relativistic intellectual and sensory based approach due to being practiced by human beings. The difference as I view it is that I choose to move in the direction of fully imperfect faith in the belief of a perfect personality, God, with the faith and hope that He can bring me perfection and an absolute foundation from which to know the absolute truth. If you personally, or others are content with a relativistic set of truths, "if it makes you happy" who am I to judge you to be on the wrong path? It could very well be right for you, and wrong for me, as quite frankly, I am in no real position to judge. How is it then, that you are not able to do the same with those who choose faith in God over faith in relativistic logic founded in senses lacking independent calibration and an intellect that lacks an absolute foundation? Doesn't the judgment of those who choose faith in their own limited mind really boil down to the same type of faith based fundamentalism we see with fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims? It becomes blind faith if the tools of perception are not known to see clearly. It is logically possible that human senses and relativistic logic are something to be overcome and distrusted when it comes to the concept of being capable of knowing a perfect being. Isn't is just a matter of the failed fundamentalist Christians turned atheists trading one dogmatic approach of absorption into a belief system based on relativistic logic and senses for a different set of belief systems than when they were theists? This seems to be to be very similar in practice to what they did when they were absorbed in practicing religion. "I am right, therefore you are wrong if you don't agree with me" has been the position of most western and Islamic religions for centuries. Tell us that you don't practice a similar set of judgments when you evaluate faith from the relative perspective of empiricism.
Hi ART, I selected the two sentences in your last post that seemed to sum up where you come from. I read your whole post and really tried to understand what you are saying. Just a tip BTW: We learned in marketing that if you use short sentences, people catch on quicker...and you can sell more. Also use more commas for pauses, and dashes - and - ...ellipses. One of your sentences I read slowly three times and finally gave up. This is just to help you help us out. You choose faith in a perfect deity, while maintaining tolerance toward others. Is this how you should be understood? If so, we are not too far apart. Congrats. However, I prefer to use the word *model* rather than faith. That is, I have a model of the cosmos in my mind. This is basically an idea construct. A model is like a scientific postulate, or thesis. It is something to start with. Then tests are conducted and information is gathered. Then we look at the model again in light of what has been discovered. We see if the model still stands up. If not, it is adjusted, and new experiments are conducted...more information gathered. I distance myself from faith as much as possible when trying to verify something. What I mean is, certain types of faith serve to further truncate our sensory input, and prevent new information from coming in. This is all the more important, since, as you say, our sensory faculties are faulty. We need all the help we can get, whereas: Faith tends to set one's models in concrete, whether they are accurate or not. For this reason it is rare to find people of faith that are also tolerant -- such as yourself. From my perspective, faith can also be a desirable tool...when I'm not actually trying to verify anything. That is, faith helps when I am trying to change my behavior, or draw certain experiences into my life. I agree with Napolean Hill, who postulated that... ...faith can be manufactured. To manufacture faith, you mix up these ingredients into an *elixir*: Desire Emotion Repetition (Auto Suggestion) When you consider that churches use all these ingredients masterfully, the result is *faith*. Have you ever *desired* to go to heaven? Have you ever *feared* (emotion) going to hell? Have you ever heard/sung a beautiful song to the Lord that brought a tear (emotion) to your eye? Have you ever sang the verses over and over again (repetition)? Have you ever recited a *creed* each and every week, over and over again? How many times have you heard, "The Lord will provide" ? How many times have you said this to yourself (auto-suggestion)? The result is that you will begin to experience things that corroborate your faith. Indeed, the Lord will provide. Many of us, witches and warlocks included, use faith in a similar way, toward similar results. I am simply of the experience/observation, that there are too many negative results associated with church based faith. I seek faith that results in peace, not war, intolerance, pain, fear, and sorrow. This is to say that the ingredients being tossed into the cauldron of church based faith, are flawed and potentially dangerous. Like playing with fire. JohnnyK
"You choose faith in a perfect deity, while maintaining tolerance toward others. Is this how you should be understood?" Basically, yes. However, faith is more than just belief in the existence of a perfect deity, it is the trusting and relational feelings that are developed and deepen over time as that trust grows that constitute the type of faith I practice. However, I prefer to use the word *model* rather than faith. That is, I have a model of the cosmos in my mind. This is basically an idea construct. A model is like a scientific postulate, or thesis. It is something to start with. Then tests are conducted and information is gathered. Then we look at the model again in light of what has been discovered. We see if the model still stands up. If not, it is adjusted, and new experiments are conducted...more information gathered. People are free to use whatever word they want, and hold whatever concept in their mind they wish. I distance myself from faith as much as possible when trying to verify something. What I mean is, certain types of faith serve to further truncate our sensory input, and prevent new information from coming in. This is all the more important, since, as you say, our sensory faculties are faulty. We need all the help we can get, whereas: Faith tends to set one's models in concrete, whether they are accurate or not. For this reason it is rare to find people of faith that are also tolerant -- such as yourself. I don't understand the worship of a perfect God and not have the qualities of tolerance and acceptance follow accordingly. If I can use an analogy. Say a man is very happily married, in love, and content with his wife. Does he care about what other men think of their wives? Would he really care what other men thought of his wife if he was truly content? Would he really need to convince others that he loved his wife, that he was content, or that they should have a marriage like his? Would he need to try to talk single men into marriage? I think not. If faith in God brings inner contentment and fulfillment, tolerance of others and their beliefs would typically follow. From my perspective, faith can also be a desirable tool...when I'm not actually trying to verify anything. That is, faith helps when I am trying to change my behavior, or draw certain experiences into my life. I agree with Napolean Hill, who postulated that... ...faith can be manufactured. To manufacture faith, you mix up these ingredients into an *elixir*: Desire Emotion Repetition (Auto Suggestion) When you consider that churches use all these ingredients masterfully, the result is *faith*. Have you ever *desired* to go to heaven? Have you ever *feared* (emotion) going to hell? Have you ever heard/sung a beautiful song to the Lord that brought a tear (emotion) to your eye? Have you ever sang the verses over and over again (repetition)? Have you ever recited a *creed* each and every week, over and over again? How many times have you heard, "The Lord will provide" ? How many times have you said this to yourself (auto-suggestion)? The result is that you will begin to experience things that corroborate your faith. Indeed, the Lord will provide. Many of us, witches and warlocks included, use faith in a similar way, toward similar results. I am simply of the experience/observation, that there are too many negative results associated with church based faith. I seek faith that results in peace, not war, intolerance, pain, fear, and sorrow. This is to say that the ingredients being tossed into the cauldron of church based faith, are flawed and potentially dangerous. Like playing with fire. If it works for you, if your faith makes you a better human being, then how could anyone criticize you for your belief systems? Personally, I make a big distinction between faith in God and faith in a church.....between faith in God directly and the practice of the creed and dogma of any particular religion. True Godly religions are always started by God, and it seems always finished by human beings. However, I don't blame God for the human weaknesses that result in the abuse by religious leaders and their followers. Nor can I really judge the followers. As long as they allow me to practice my faith in peace, that is really all that I desire. This is the primary reason I have tried to have discussions with the atheists here at E.T. Not so much as a desire to convert them, but more of an attempt to get them to practice greater tolerance of those who don't follow their path. I don't view them as practicing tolerance when it comes to the belief systems of others from what I read on these threads. Our country has its foundation in freedom from religious persecution, yet the atheists here ridicule and taunt those of faith in often a most sadistic manner. I don't understand why they are not able to simply live and let live, to have their belief systems, be confident in their belief systems, and at the same time not criticize or judge others for their choices in life. It becomes a major value judgment on their side, equal in my mind to those religions who feel it is their job to convert or kill those that don't agree with them. I guess this is why I conclude that the militant atheists are carrying baggage from past negative experiences with religion, and this baggage impinges on present time. My recent goal has been to point out that they are implementing their own brand of faith by digging into the depths of human experience and understanding which reveal a lack of absoluteness. It is perfectly okay with me for them to have their own beliefs, as long as they don't persecute others of different belief systems in the process. Why these things devolve into flaming is really beyond my understanding, and I find myself being drawn into the fray at times. It doesn't feel good, and I do what I can to attempt to simply tell my story and move along, but often I fail, and for that I am sorry for a variety of reasons. JohnnyK [/B][/QUOTE]
I hesitate to think we are making progress with the argument ART, but we are it seems (for the first time perhaps) reaching some agreement. (I shudder at the thought ) I would like to recap to confirm where we are at. I said: "The most important questions could only be answered with the senses, intellect and reasoning abilities." You said: You cannot provide a proof of those claims without dependency on the senses, intellect, and reasoning abilities, hence the conclusion you draw is 100% circular in nature If your statement is correct, then it applies to your argument as much as mine...... You have agreed with this by saying: "I agree, you are correct. My arguments fail, as your arguments fail, as all arguments fail to produce absolute knowledge when they are constructed on a relativistic platform. Now, at this point as you recognize yourself, your argument and (any) arguments you make, fail (as do mine, I agree, if I accept your premise , which of course I do not). So you bring Faith out of the bag as a replacement for the senses, intellect and reasoning abilities. But of course to do that - to know or realize what Faith is - along with its meanings notions ideas and concepts of faith - you require senses, intellect and reasoning abilities. BANG goes your arguments, you have already determined senses, intellect and reasoning abilities are flawed and unsuitable for reaching any 'absolute' knowledge. Therefore by your own argument, you will not reach any 'absolute' knowledge (or any knowledge) via faith, or of faith, or of anything else. To your argument, my contention is, Theists use your failed circular argument to say... people are incapable of knowing anything which is constructed on a relativistic platform so faith, God, deeper meaning, a stronger or a different kind of faith is the answer.... But, according to your argument, people are incapable of knowing anything constructed on a relativistic platform, how would they know faith is an answer ??!! By your own argument , NON faith is of equal value! Faith has to be constructed on a relativistic platform as does everything else. btw. If you would have it that faith is not constructed on a relativistic platform then it has no more measure or meaning than does a faith in Pink Pixies and Goblins. Atheists might conclude.... if people are incapable of knowing, then that's it, people are incapable of knowing, so make NO assumptions about faith or anything else! To make it clear though I should add, I don't think your argument is an acceptable one in the first place, therefore it is not one which would be worthy of such a conclusion.
Here is where I believe you fail in your comments below of judging faith, as you ultimately use your own faith by which to judge another man's faith. . I have asked previously to the atheists the following question: By what criteria would you know God? If God is not material, and not relative, but rather existing at all places at no particular time (a relativistic impossibility) then by what measure could you confirm that you were in fact meeting God if God does in fact exist as non material and absolute? It is by the fixed nature of the criteria you use, i.e. relativistic logic and physical senses that you could never extend beyond the tools at your disposal to arrive at anything absolute in nature. Imagine that if God did in fact exist as absolute and Divine, and did in fact appear before you in the form of a man so that you could see and hear Him, and He says: "Have faith in Me, and I will give you My Absolute Vision. I will bestow upon you the ability to see my Divine form, which exists at all times in no particular place. My form is beyond your material senses, it is beyond relativistic logic, yet if you have faith in Me, I will Divinize your senses, Divinize your mind, and allow you to see me as I am. This is a gift from Me to you, and all you have to do is have faith in Me, trust in Me, and be willing to see Me with My eyes." Naturally, your skepticism would want proof first, but the demand is for faith first from God. So, as you will not practice faith first, you would not receive God's gift. So you have placed a condition before God that He must meet your requirements of a proof, requirements that are bound to your own limited nature. You would never be able to rise above your own level of intelligence. If God did exist as I describe, you would have zero chance to progress in knowing His real nature, as you would be required to leave behind your relativistic and materialistic tools to do so. You would have no chance to know God, the faithful would have a chance. In the same way, that to know something completely different than our previous experiences, it often requires a leap of faith into a new human experience previously unknown. On a practical level, this happens when people try new foods, listen to new music, think new ideas, travel to new places, etc. Anything new is going to require moving away from the old and the known. So the issue is, if God does in fact exist, and does in fact exist outside the reach of relativistic logic and material senses, and if you would never trust or have faith in God before knowing Him, you would never possibly progress to know Him, or anything outside of your comfort zone. Can't you see that you have set up a condition of what would constitute proof, would constitute knowing, and as such forever remain bound and limited to that field of knowledge and level of understanding? And to top it off, the basis of that decision is circular reasoning. That criteria you have set forth is based on relativistic logic and limited perception itself. You would forever remain bound to the circle of limits, dualism, and matter. Is there is in fact something beyond materialism, dualism, relativistic logic, and limited sensory perception how would you ever have the chance to know it if you remained fixed in your criteria that would not allow you to move beyond your present limits? If there is more than meets the eye, you will never ever know, as you would have to try something different to know. Say suddenly every human being but you claimed to be seeing God, and knowing God, as God had bestowed His Vision on them through their faith. Would they be wrong, and would you be right sticking to your criteria of non faith? Faith would at least allow someone the chance to admit they didn't know everything, to admit that they were possibly lacking, and create an opportunity and willingness to learn and experience something new. That you choose your own path is perfectly your choice, perfectly your option, and who am I to say that it is wrong for you to think so? However, how you can say that the experiences of someone else who is having faith are the product of delusion, or possibly not real, or possibly not actually relational with God....when you yourself do not know with absolute knowledge that sense and intellect are not themselves deluding you and keeing you from the experience of absolute truth? It is not logical as you are stating that your criteria is the only possible and true criteria by which to come to such conclusion.....or your position is logical only by your criteria, which itself is subject to logical doubt as to its ability to reveal truth independent of human senses and relativistic logic. You can stick to your fixed and rigid position, and that is fine by me, but you can never make a proof that the tools you are using are the right tools to know truth independent of human intellect, relativistic logic, and limited senses. If it makes you happy..... For you to pass value judgments on others though on that basis, has been shown to be faulty, and not necessarily revealing a truth independent of nor conditional upon anything but your own personal choice of tools of evaluation and decision making. As you simply do not know, yet you continue to judge others and their experience of faith, the only conclusion I can reach is that you are in love with your own opinions, your own conclusions, and your own human experience that you believe are right for not only yourself but all other human beings. I view this as a form of fundamentalist thinking, ultimately based in a subjective and personal belief system, not in a Truth independent of you own mind, nor derived by means of absolute methods or absolute tools.
Quote from ARogueTrader: Italics Quote from JohnnyK: Straight font Hi ART, It seems then that you are not your typical believer. Most believers have a model of a diety who/which is intolerant. Tolerance is not a typical trait of people who's model of an intolerant god/God is set in concrete. Your idea must be of a tolerant god/God...true? I am relieved to know that when they burn me at the stake, you will not be there with more matches and kerosene. Just in case, however, I will test your tolerance levels with my comments. ... However, faith is more than just belief in the existence of a perfect deity, it is the trusting and relational feelings that are developed and deepen over time as that trust grows that constitute the type of faith I practice. Why these things devolve into flaming is really beyond my understanding, and I find myself being drawn into the fray at times. The "relational" (relationship ie. kinship?) type feelings would be *protective* type emotions that may be drawing you into the fray. You used an analogy of a man happy with his wife. Most men will fight for their wives' honor/reputation. You may be doing a similar thing regarding your god/God. He is your friend, after all. I have a model that can maintain this relationship type viewpoint, while diffusing the need to feel you must protect/fight for it. The result is peace. It is radical. In my opinion the model I promote is what Christ was trying to convey, but got stamped out in the battles for political/ecclesiastical power. I can only share it with people who are tolerant. People are free to use whatever word they want, and hold whatever concept in their mind they wish. True. Free at last. I use *model* to promote peace. It is flexible. I don't understand the worship of a perfect God and not have the qualities of tolerance and acceptance follow accordingly. If faith in God brings inner contentment and fulfillment, tolerance of others and their beliefs would typically follow. If it works for you, if your faith makes you a better human being, then how could anyone criticize you for your belief systems? Maybe there are some models of God - set in faith - that do not bring inner contentment and fulfillment to the faithful. An intolerant God might not promote a feeling of contentment. Tolerance of others might not follow. Again, you must have a tolerant model. Tolerance would follow. I am curious what your model is. Personally, I make a big distinction between faith in God and faith in a church.....between faith in God directly and the practice of the creed and dogma of any particular religion. Where then do you gather your information from? True Godly religions are always started by God, and it seems always finished by human beings. I have a model that suggests religions can be/are started by galactic bretheren trying to assist mankinds development. As they are advanced and have mastered certain natural principles, they are oft misconstrued to be God/Gods by the uninformed. They do nothing to change this conception, for reasons of their own. And yes, it starts off well, and devolves like a bad thread. Indeed, these threads are a microcosm of the world around us. However, I don't blame God for the human weaknesses that result in the abuse by religious leaders and their followers. Nor can I really judge the followers. As long as they allow me to practice my faith in peace, that is really all that I desire. This is the primary reason I have tried to have discussions with the atheists here at E.T. Not so much as a desire to convert them, but more of an attempt to get them to practice greater tolerance of those who don't follow their path. I don't view them as practicing tolerance when it comes to the belief systems of others from what I read on these threads. Our country has its foundation in freedom from religious persecution, yet the atheists here ridicule and taunt those of faith in often a most sadistic manner. I don't understand why they are not able to simply live and let live, to have their belief systems, be confident in their belief systems, and at the same time not criticize or judge others for their choices in life. It becomes a major value judgment on their side, equal in my mind to those religions who feel it is their job to convert or kill those that don't agree with them. I guess this is why I conclude that the militant atheists are carrying baggage from past negative experiences with religion, and this baggage impinges on present time. I have a reincarnational model that you may not agree with. However, it could help to explain the radical behavior of some people. As an example, some of those who experience the gore of war in one lifetime, will come back feeling an irresistable urge to stage non-violent protests against current wars...for whatever reason. These people understand the futility of violence better than most...having experienced it too much. Similarily, many people have been literally burned at the stake, or in many other ways, been persecuted by the intolerance of most religions. Their lives may have been made miserable during a dark age of ignorance and intolerance. I would not be surprised to see these people come back and shout down theists of any stripe (including the occasional tolerant theist). You might find such people in these threads feeling an irresistable urge to *flame* whom they percieve to be persecutors/potential persecutors. Understand that they possess some truth. They understand some things better than others, without really even knowing how or why. They may not be able to articulate it, but they have experienced it. Tolerate them. They are doing us a favor. They are vigilant against the last remaining ditches of intolerance, such as Pres. Bushs' ammendment idea. It is a sign of the times. Never again will negative religion/superstition have such dominating power over the world's citizens. It will be shouted down before it will be allowed to happen again. You can view it as karmic retribution/balancing that you don't need to take personally. This promotes peace. It doesn't feel good, and I do what I can to attempt to simply tell my story and move along, but often I fail, and for that I am sorry for a variety of reasons. Apology accepted. Good story. Let's move along. JohnnyK