Faith is the issue

[Inevitable Droid]

Occasionally I indulge my morbid curiosity and read the debates between theists and atheists.  I never find them satisfactory.  Oh, certainly I consider the atheists to have immeasurably better arguments - frankly I don't credit the theists with having any serious arguments at all - but the debate continues until the last dogged participant finally gives up, and then the thread dies, and a new thread rises from the ashes like a phoenix, and the debate starts again.  Recently it occurred to me that maybe the wrong topic is being debated.

The atheist says, "I need evidence before I'll consider any claim."  Meanwhile, the theist says something like, "I know in my heart God exists."  But of course the atheist doesn't care what the theists know in their hearts, so then the theist attempts to play the only game the atheist is willing to play - the evidence game.  Naturally the theist fails miserably because there isn't any evidence that will convince, unless one already knows what one needs to know in one's heart.

The real issue, it seems to me, is the attitude toward faith.  Atheists reject faith on principle - any faith, all faith, in any and all contexts.  Theists, by contrast, embrace faith to varying degrees, some going so far as to claim any faith, all faith, is valid, while others narrow the domain of what modes of faith are valid and what modes aren't.  There are theists who will entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe, leprechauns really exist.  Other theists find that notion ridiculous but have no problem with archangels.  Nevertheless, by embracing any faith at all, theists of any stripe position themselves on one side of a bright line of demarcation, on the other side of which we atheists stand, and will stand forever, or at least until the maggot makes a breakfast of our remains.    

So why not talk about the real issue?  Faith is grotesque, say I.  It is anti-life from every conceivable perspective, for it is anti-mind, anti-world, anti-survival, anti-progress, anti-strength, anti-wealth, anti-cosmopolitan, and anti-wonder.  Faith is death and degradation, psychosis and chaos, failure and misery, conflagration and decay.  Faith is a zombie devouring brains from inside the skull.  Faith is the only gibbering demon that really exists.
 
Theists apparently think otherwise.  Why?  That's what I want to know.  I invite theists to explain their attitude toward faith.  Not toward God.  I don't care about their attitude toward God because it's based on a principle I utterly repudiate, namely, faith.  So it's that principle, faith, that I invite theists to contemplate and describe, even defend, if they can.  I just ask them for one favor.  I ask that they please don't say that their faith is based on evidence.  It isn't.  Everyone knows it isn't.  Evidence and faith have nothing to do with one another.  It is the very essence of faith to be indifferent to evidence.

I yield the floor to any theist who wishes to step up.

[AnimatedDirt]

I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

[Dretlin]

I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

If it was evidence then it would be knowledge and not faith.

[lundberg500]

Inevitable Droid, this is one the best posts I have ever seen in explaining the constant debates between atheists and christians. You have nailed it on the head. It truly does come down to faith. Good post.  

[AnimatedDirt]

I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

If it was evidence then it would be knowledge and not faith.

Sorry, the knowledge comes after the proof.  You've substanciated my faith and NOW it is knowledge.  

[joeactor]

So why not talk about the real issue?  Faith is grotesque, say I.  It is anti-life from every conceivable perspective, for it is anti-mind, anti-world, anti-survival, anti-progress, anti-strength, anti-wealth, anti-cosmopolitan, and anti-wonder.  Faith is death and degradation, psychosis and chaos, failure and misery, conflagration and decay.  Faith is a zombie devouring brains from inside the skull.  Faith is the only gibbering demon that really exists.

Hey Droid - good topic.

Like it or not, "Faith" and its many and varied manifestations in the world, exists in abundance.

Why?

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, it must afford some trait or traits that give an edge to those that have it.

As Henry Ford put it: ""Whether You Believe You Can, Or You Can't, You Are Right"
... or from M.C. Escher: "Only Those Who Attempt The Absurd Will Achieve The Impossible"

Faith can be a motivating force.  It can fuel the imagination and make the seemingly impossible possible.

Faith may also provide a cushion against some of the harsh realities of the world, giving the believer a greater sense of calm and purpose.  This may afford them the ability to survive situations, or handle stress in a more productive way.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), one cannot choose to believe.  You believe or not.  Evidence may sway you one way or another, but in the end it's internal to each individual.

Where am I going with this?

I have no idea.

I Believe (I'll go have a beer),
JoeActor

[Persimmon Hamster]

I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

By the following definitions, what you just referred to cannot be called faith.  You do have some amount of proof by your previous experiences.

From Merriam-Webster.com:

faith
2) b) 1) firm belief in something for which there is no proof

proof
1) a) the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

cogent
2) a) appealing forcibly to the mind or reason : convincing

[AnimatedDirt]

I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

By the following definitions, what you just referred to cannot be called faith.  You do have some amount of proof by your previous experiences.

Hi Persimmon Hamster.

I can agree to some extent, however the words that were placed in this thread as you quote above were placed HERE and not somewhere else.  It is a new thread in which it hasn't YET been proven that my words will be read.  NOW there is proof and NOW there is knowledge.  Prior to proof MY words would be read, it was faith based on other topics and other postings.  Had there been an equal topic already in existence named the same, with the same original posting by the same author, and my words in reply...then the above would ring true.  (in other words an exact, repeatable test.)  I'm open to being wrong.  

[Dretlin]

I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

If it was evidence then it would be knowledge and not faith.

Sorry, the knowledge comes after the proof.  You've substanciated my faith and NOW it is knowledge.  

Faith and knowledge are not the same. You have faith and you believe it, I really take no issue with that, as I have no reason to think your not telling the truth about it. You seem honest.

My issue is asserting that strong faith is equal or greater than knowledge or can become it, which is not the case.

[Inevitable Droid]

I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

Presumably you're saying that when you've posted to other threads, your words were read, so you have faith in the principle that what has occurred before will occur again, and thus you have faith your words in this thread will be read.

That isn't faith.  That's reasonable certainty grounded in extrapolation from your own direct experience with your own eyes.  I don't absolutely know the sun will rise tomorrow morning but I'm reasonably certain it will, by virtue of extrapolating from all the mornings I've experienced with my own eyes since 1961 when I was born.

The only way you can equate the above with faith in Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior is if you've had direct experience of the Lamb of God with your own eyes.  Have you?

[AnimatedDirt]

I have faith, based on evidence, these words will be read.

Presumably you're saying that when you've posted to other threads, your words were read, so you have faith in the principle that what has occurred before will occur again, and thus you have faith your words in this thread will be read.

That isn't faith.  That's reasonable certainty grounded in extrapolation from your own direct experience with your own eyes.  I don't absolutely know the sun will rise tomorrow morning but I'm reasonably certain it will, by virtue of extrapolating from all the mornings I've experienced with my own eyes since 1961 when I was born.

The only way you can equate the above with faith in Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior is if you've had direct experience of the Lamb of God with your own eyes.  Have you?

I didn't even mention God or Christ...I thought you wanted to leave Him out?

Didn't someone already post the definition of faith?  There was no proof that anyone would read my words in THIS thread at the point which I posted them.

[AnimatedDirt]

My issue is asserting that strong faith is equal or greater than knowledge or can become it, which is not the case.

Sorry I missed this post and didn't mean to ignore it.

I don't know that any one equates faith with knowledge.  If they do, then they and I separate at that point.

I do not equate faith and knowledge, however through faith in observation, as evidenced by my first post in this thread, we can become knowledgable on specific points.  Here the point being that through faith in evidence I was confident my words would be read.  Proof, however came after some other entity responded and even quoted them therefore giving me knowledge they were read.

[Thumpalumpacus]

One issue is that there are several different connotations of "faith" which depend on the surrounding context; it's been my experience that many theists, and some atheists, equivocate the varying connotations.

I keep faith with my friends; I am faithful in that regard.

I have no faith; I am in that regard faithless.

[Persimmon Hamster]

I can agree to some extent, however the words that were placed in this thread as you quote above were placed HERE and not somewhere else.  It is a new thread in which it hasn't YET been proven that my words will be read.  NOW there is proof and NOW there is knowledge.  Prior to proof MY words would be read, it was faith based on other topics and other postings.  Had there been an equal topic already in existence named the same, with the same original posting by the same author, and my words in reply...then the above would ring true.  (in other words an exact, repeatable test.)  I'm open to being wrong.  

If I file this under "being difficult", will you mind?
There was proof before.  Not absence of proof.  NOW there is simply more proof.  You posted words on the Internet, in a thread, on a forum.  The forum has active users.  The thread has an OP.  We know how forums work; that is, people visit them and read them and reply to any thread which catches their interest and it stands to reason at least one person will have an interest in this case: the OP.  The OP asked a direct question, therefore anticipates responses and is seeking them.  The OP has a fairly large amount of posts for only being a user for under 4 days.  With all of this evidence, you have more than a complete lack of proof.  There is no lack of cogent evidence to compel acceptance by the mind that your words would be read.  It stands to reason that you were going to be correct.  It was not faith.

[Dretlin]

My issue is asserting that strong faith is equal or greater than knowledge or can become it, which is not the case.

Sorry I missed this post and didn't mean to ignore it.

I don't know that any one equates faith with knowledge.  If they do, then they and I separate at that point.

I do not equate faith and knowledge, however through faith in observation, as evidenced by my first post in this thread, we can become knowledgable on specific points.  Here the point being that through faith in evidence I was confident my words would be read.  Proof, however came after some other entity responded and even quoted them therefore giving me knowledge they were read.

By knowledge I mean it in the sense of Objectivity. The knowledge of your faith, and your awareness of it, does not elevate it to anything higher than faith. If that were true, I could say the knowledge that I am left handed was true. Yes the thought exists, I have knowledge that the thought exists - the issue is that it does not hold true to reality. As I am right handed.

And I would never think you would ignore any posts!