Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes the stories are always second (or third, or fourth) hand, in some distant land or in the distant past.
If raising the dead were an actual thing it would have been witnessed, documented, celebrated by billions already.
The usual answer to such a critique is that if god did anything in plain sight it would not be faith. But if that were the true situation, then there would be no point in intervening in human affairs at all, because for miracles to inspire you, you'd have to be inadvisably credulous anyway. Faith is the demand for belief without evidence, so why do we need even rumors? Wouldn't faith be more "genuine" if there were not even rumors and anecdotes that miracles happen, and people believe in them anyway?
It's campfire stories, all the way down, I'm afraid.
But you're predisposed to disbelieve, or "less inclined" as the OP put it.
Faith is not "the demand for belief without evidence". Faith is the evidence.
But you're predisposed to disbelieve, or "less inclined" as the OP put it.
Faith is not "the demand for belief without evidence". Faith is the evidence.
That is circular reasoning. And no less so because that is the definition of faith in the Bible ("the evidence of things not seen").
Things not seen are evidence of precisely nothing.
Evidence is not emotion, hopes, wishes, dreams, or holy writ. Evidence must be observable and falsifiable. Everything that religion concerns itself with is conveniently non-falsifiable and almost entirely non-observable as well.
That is circular reasoning. And no less so because that is the definition of faith in the Bible ("the evidence of things not seen").
Things not seen are evidence of precisely nothing.
Evidence is not emotion, hopes, wishes, dreams, or holy writ. Evidence must be observable and falsifiable. Everything that religion concerns itself with is conveniently non-falsifiable and almost entirely non-observable as well.
I think you're misunderstanding. The assertion is that the fact that humans have faith is evidence that the unseen exists.
Faith is not a hope, wish, dream, etc. Faith is a virtue that leads to real action, i.e. it affects decision making in real time.
You're using the word "evidence", when what you really mean is "empirical evidence".
We don't adhere to empiricism, as it is an empty and sterile philosophy that leads nowhere. It also fails to accurately describe or explain reality.
But you're predisposed to disbelieve, or "less inclined" as the OP put it.
Faith is not "the demand for belief without evidence". Faith is the evidence.
For the "less inclined," this is a rationale that is a little hard to adopt, because the need for evidence applies to just about anything we're going to believe as mature, discerning adults. Right?
Think of all the things ALL of us require along these lines to do and believe so many things. Do we simply have faith a car is the value a car salesman tells us? Do we require no evidence that a doctor is actually a doctor? Do we take on faith there is water in a pool before we dive in?
When for all of us the basic requirements of facts, evidence and proof will dictate what we think and do, it's a bit odd to argue we should suspend those requirements when it comes to believing in the supernatural. Why do so? Well obviously because if you don't suspend those requirements, you are free to believe just about anything. Promote just about anything as truth.
Always seems to me that the truth should not require any such suspension of critical thinking. The opposite in fact...
For the "less inclined," this is a rationale that is a little hard to adopt, because the need for evidence applies to just about anything we're going to believe as mature, discerning adults. Right?
Think of all the things ALL of us require along these lines to do and believe so many things. Do we simply have faith a car is the value a car salesman tells us? Do we require no evidence that a doctor is actually a doctor? Do we take on faith there is water in a pool before we dive in?
When for all of us the basic requirements of facts, evidence and proof will dictate what we think and do, it's a bit odd to argue we should suspend those requirements when it comes to believing in the supernatural. Why do so? Well obviously because if you don't suspend those requirements, you are free to believe just about anything. Promote just about anything as truth.
Always seems to me that the truth should not require any such suspension of critical thinking. The opposite in fact...
We don't "suspend those requirements" at all. The evidence for the supernatural is so overwhelmingly abundant, that to deny it is to border on insanity. Disbelief is a delusion that has to be broken.
We don't "suspend those requirements" at all. The evidence for the supernatural is so overwhelmingly abundant, that to deny it is to border on insanity. Disbelief is a delusion that has to be broken.
All you have to do is to provide evidence for your claims. And not only credible evidence, it has to be stronger than that for any counter claims, and explain what we observe better than those counter claims.
Perhaps you can start by explaining why so many people need to fake their supernatural claims?
We don't "suspend those requirements" at all. The evidence for the supernatural is so overwhelmingly abundant, that to deny it is to border on insanity. Disbelief is a delusion that has to be broken.
Among the reasons we don't agree or see things the same way is in large part how you define these terms very differently than I do. Seems you believe faith is something different from what I understand faith to be. Faith for me and a lot of other people is..., well..., here's the general definition I'm referring to. Not my definition but the common definition found in the dictionary. In particular this in bold below:
Definition of faith (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
lost faith in the company's president
b(1): fidelity to one's promises
(2): sincerity of intentions
acted in good faith
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return
(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction
especially : a system of religious beliefs
the Protestant faith
on faith : without question
took everything he said on faith
You obviously have a different definition for words like evidence and reality as well. No need for us to think a discussion will be productive when you are using terms with definitions very different from mine. Your idea of this evidence or proof a god exists are not what I call evidence or proof. What is what in these respects is a very common "disconnect" between believers and atheists. We all know this and probably should know better than to argue despite these differences. At a minimum, I think it's best to just make these differences very clear.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.