Atheists have faith in things too.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

If you trust people that is a type of faith, If an Atheist trusts in something without hard evidence then that means he has faith in that manner.

You have no proof that your partner has stayed faithful to you unless you keep him/her locked up in a cage. Yet you would have faith they are faithfull despite the fact that you have no evidence to back up that claim.

If a loved one tells you what they are thinking is true and you believe them, you have faith they are telling the truth, because again you can present no hard evidence they are telling the truth.


peace.

[Crunchy Cat]

Correct-a-mundo.

[spidergoat]

One may act like they have faith in a partner, but you must know that your faith could be misplaced. Acknowledging the provisional nature of faith isn't something religious people like to admit.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

One may act like they have faith in a partner, but you must know that your faith could be misplaced. Acknowledging the provisional nature of faith isn't something religious people like to admit.

but regardless if it is misplaced, it is still faith held by an atheist. do you see where im going with this?

Im just trying to get people to understand and not be so angry at religious people. some religious people are smart and good people. But to be honest nobody annoys me more than religious people I don't usualy sy that here though. I don't like to spread hate.


peace.

[Simon Anders]

Faith in the self's continuity through time.
Faith in reason.
Faith in their own intuition in at least certain areas.
Faith in the existence of other minds.
Faith in their ability to judge character.
Faith in their knowledge of true roots of certain political problems.
Faith in certain moral judgments.


I see few people who do not have faith in these things.

[Repo Man]

I have faith that the moment I think I have things mostly sorted out, I will be made aware of new information that proves me completely wrong.

[scorpius]

If you trust people that is a type of faith, If an Atheist trusts in something without hard evidence then that means he has faith in that manner.

so what????

dont tell me it makes them religious in someway :rolleyes:

[iceaura]

The word "faith" covers a lot of ground.

I would differentiate faith in defiance of reason from faith in agreement with reason. For starters.

[Steve100]

If you trust people that is a type of faith, If an Atheist trusts in something without hard evidence then that means he has faith in that manner.

You have no proof that your partner has stayed faithful to you unless you keep him/her locked up in a cage. Yet you would have faith they are faithfull despite the fact that you have no evidence to back up that claim.

If a loved one tells you what they are thinking is true and you believe them, you have faith they are telling the truth, because again you can present no hard evidence they are telling the truth.


peace.

No shit Sherlock.

[kenworth]

If you trust people that is a type of faith, If an Atheist trusts in something without hard evidence then that means he has faith in that manner.

You have no proof that your partner has stayed faithful to you unless you keep him/her locked up in a cage. Yet you would have faith they are faithfull despite the fact that you have no evidence to back up that claim.

If a loved one tells you what they are thinking is true and you believe them, you have faith they are telling the truth, because again you can present no hard evidence they are telling the truth.


peace.

trust is based on evidence.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

so what????

dont tell me it makes them religious in someway :rolleyes:


No but you can't be a hypocrite and put religious people down for having faith in god, when you have faith yourself in so many other aspects.


peace.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

trust is based on evidence.


Not hard evidence.

peace.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

No shit Sherlock.


Great insight.


peace.

[Cris]

Empty,

If you trust people that is a type of faith, If an Atheist trusts in something without hard evidence then that means he has faith in that manner.Unfortunately this whole frequently presented issue is derived from a misuse of the term 'faith' or a misunderstanding of its dual meanings.

Faith can be used in two ways –

1. A conviction that something is true despite the absence of evidence (this is religious faith).

2. The acceptance that although some things are not certain I have seen the event often enough to know it is likely to occur again. This is a statistical phenomenon more accurately known as inductive logic.

The second version we all use frequently. For example, you assume that when you sit in a chair it will not collapse under you. Most of the time that will be true but it is possible that it might at some point fail. I drive to work everyday and there is a high probability I will arrive safely on my next journey, but there is no guarantee. Your spouse may have demonstrated significant fidelity for a long time, but people can change. In a very real sense you have significant evidence that what has occurred is likely to occur again based on previous occurrences of the same thing. However, be careful, if the sample is small then your faith might not be well placed.

The first version is perhaps more accurately described as blind faith. Here you have absolutely no previous results to show that your faith has any basis for being true at any time.

It is very important to make a clear distinction between the two variations of the term faith. It is perhaps wiser to avoid using the term faith when addressing the second version. Religionists usually confuse the two frequently in the misguided notion that everyone uses faith so their version is no different to everyone else. This is false.

[spidergoat]

It's not the same kind of faith, it's better known as trust. You trust some people because they have not proven themselves untrustworthy. This is a strategy for social interaction, not faith in a fixed model of the world.

[Nasor]

If you trust people that is a type of faith, If an Atheist trusts in something without hard evidence then that means he has faith in that manner.

You have no proof that your partner has stayed faithful to you unless you keep him/her locked up in a cage. Yet you would have faith they are faithfull despite the fact that you have no evidence to back up that claim.

If a loved one tells you what they are thinking is true and you believe them, you have faith they are telling the truth, because again you can present no hard evidence they are telling the truth.
True, but none of the things that you list (a partner being faithful, telling you the truth, etc.) are particularly outlandish or fantastical, so it's reasonable to take their claim as sufficient evidence to believe it. There's a big difference between believing those things and believing in an all-knowing magical being that controls the universe with his mind. If I asked a loved one what she was thinking and she replied "I just figured out how to build a working time machine," I would probably be skeptical.

If I said that I had a pencil on my desk it would be reasonable for you to simply take my word for it. If I said that I had a brick of plutonium on my desk, you would probably be very skeptical and ask for more evidence before believing me. I could respond to your request for more evidence with "But you believed me about the pencil! Why won't you have faith in this too!?!" but that wouldn't make your request for more evidence unreasonable.

No but you can't be a hypocrite and put religious people down for having faith in god, when you have faith yourself in so many other aspects.
Most atheists don't mock religious people simply for having faith in something; they mock religious people for having faith in something that seems absurd and isn't supported by evidence.

[(Q)]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40171

[S.A.M.]

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea

[kenworth]

Not hard evidence.

peace.

well i vary the amount of trust i put in someone based on the amount of evidence i have that they are trustworthy.for example i wouldnt lend 10000$ to a complete stranger,vague aquaintence or someone who i knew to be bad at paying people back but i definately would lend it to a close friend.

same thing with medicine we dont just have faith that penicillin is good to cure illness,we know through long experience.there is always the chance that it might kill someone but the fact that most of the time we dont worry about it isnt about faith,its about risk assesment and probability.

[EmptyForceOfChi]

I see what you guys mean, I guess blind faith is not the same as trust based faith based on your information on the person or thing.

peace.

[synthesizer-patel]

No but you can't be a hypocrite and put religious people down for having faith in god, when you have faith yourself in so many other aspects.


peace.

The difference is that atheists have the courage to face up to being wrong and re-evaluate their beleifs based on new information.

and it is a big difference n'est pas?

[Cris]

SAM,

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an ideaThis is true. The issue then centers round the basis of that belief, e.g. does it have support and/or is it credible.

[Simon Anders]

SAM,

This is true. The issue then centers round the basis of that belief, e.g. does it have support and/or is it credible.
I think the issue raised in the thread is that we all believe in things that are either not tested, not testable or both. From there we are relying on intution, or guesses at liklihood, or faith.

[Simon Anders]

Faith can be used in two ways –

1. A conviction that something is true despite the absence of evidence (this is religious faith).

2. The acceptance that although some things are not certain I have seen the event often enough to know it is likely to occur again. This is a statistical phenomenon more accurately known as inductive logic.


Which of these covers moral beliefs, the belief in other minds or belief in the continuity of self through time?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Wait a minute. Faith is belief in something without ANY evidence. What are you guys talking about?

[Simon Anders]

Wait a minute. Faith is belief in something without ANY evidence. What are you guys talking about?
What evidence is there that an action is good or bad?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

none.

[hypewaders]

Faith in good does not require faith in god.

[Simon Anders]

Faith in good does not require faith in god. No, but the sense of 'being right' in moral judgments is an act of faith. It cannot be defended by evidence. If believing in certain things on faith is bad, per se, or best to be avoided, or always foolish, then moral judgments are problematic.

[hypewaders]

"No, but the sense of 'being right' in moral judgments is an act of faith."

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" demonstrably, consistently brings good results; requires no leap of faith; is not problematic- What we like is self-evident, and there is abundant empirical evidence for the mutual benefit of good deeds to others, in accordance with that principle.

[Simon Anders]

"No, but the sense of 'being right' in moral judgments is an act of faith."

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" demonstrably, consistently brings good results; requires no leap of faith; is not problematic- What we like is self-evident, and there is abundant empirical evidence for the mutual benefit of good deeds to others, in accordance with that principle.
Your definition includes the term you are trying to define. Thus it is circular. Further it is not agreed upon which also points to the possibility that it is based on faith.

[Sarkus]

No, but the sense of 'being right' in moral judgments is an act of faith. It cannot be defended by evidence. If believing in certain things on faith is bad, per se, or best to be avoided, or always foolish, then moral judgments are problematic.Moral judgements are an irrelevancy in this topic - a red herring.
Considering something "good" or "bad", according to our own moral compass, requires no "faith" as it is purely subjective.

There is no objective morality.
There is no objective notion of good and bad: one person's act of good is another's act of bad.


"Faith" as being discussed is belief in a claim of objective truth without objective evidence.

Some might say that believing faith that your friend will help you in your hour of need is "faith", but as has been stated this is inductive logic based on plenty of evidence (all your experiences of this friend, for example).

Religious "faith" is belief in a claim of objective truth (e.g. existence of God) without objective evidence.

[Ophiolite]

You have no proof that your partner has stayed faithful to you unless you keep him/her locked up in a cage. Yet you would have faith they are faithfull despite the fact that you have no evidence to back up that claim.Nonsense. My conclusion that they had been faithful would have been based upon years of observation of their charcater, actions and behavioural patterns. supplemented by insights into the extent of their honesty, their style of lying etc. While I could make an error in this regard, the chances of it would be pretty slim. So faith is not involved for me to any extent whatsoever.

[Nasor]

Wait a minute. Faith is belief in something without ANY evidence. What are you guys talking about?
Not really. The OED defines "faith" as:


Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine)

You can have faith in something because it is supported by convincing evidence.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I'm sorry, I don't see where your definition implies any evidence. I have faith that this computer will not self-immolate while I am using it, thus I continue to use it. I have no evidence suggesting that it can't or won't self-immolate. I don't know of any other computers self-immolating, but I recognize that my knowledge is limited, and not something to base decisions on. Thus I base my actions on my faith.

[Nasor]

I'm sorry, I don't see where your definition implies any evidence.
It doesn't imply that there has to be evidence, but it also doesn't imply that there can't be evidence. It simply say "confidence, reliance, trust." It doesn't matter what that confidence or trust is based on.

[(Q)]

I'm sorry, I don't see where your definition implies any evidence. I have faith that this computer will not self-immolate while I am using it, thus I continue to use it.

Yes, but the computer is real, hence you can make comparisons to other computers, their historical background into self-immolating and any other data you wish to find. Big difference.

[Nasor]

Yes, but the computer is real, hence you can make comparisons to other computers, their historical background into self-immolating and any other data you wish to find. Big difference.
Mr. Hamtastic doesn't seem to realize that the very fact that we have observed many computers and none/few of them have been observed to self-immolate is indeed evidence that a rondomly chosen computer probably won't self-immolate.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

On the contrary, according to the fact that there is a 1 in ??? chance that a computer WILL self-immolate. The more computers that get used and this does not happen, the more likely this becomes, to include that it will be my computer that achieves this 1:1 possibility ratio of self-immolation eventually. Infinity is big and forever is a long time. In those terms, are you going to tell me that it is NOT possible that my computer will self-immolate?

[Nasor]

On the contrary, according to the fact that there is a 1 in ??? chance that a computer WILL self-immolate. The more computers that get used and this does not happen, the more likely this becomes, to include that it will be my computer that achieves this 1:1 possibility ratio of self-immolation eventually. Infinity is big and forever is a long time. In those terms, are you going to tell me that it is NOT possible that my computer will self-immolate?
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here. No, of course it's not proof that your computer won't self-immolate. It's just evidence that it's very unlikely. Therefor it's reasonable for you to have confidence or reliance that you computer will not self-immolate. Your belief that your computer will not self-immolate is a reasonable belief that is based on evidence.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Just the fact that you have faith that your computer won't self immolate either. I like pointing out that nothing is, in fact, provable to 100%. That's beside the point though. The title of this has to do with the fact that "Atheists have faith in things too." Of course they do. To say that they do not is silly. They have faith that when they go to sleep, after awhile, they will wake up. Else, they'd prepare for their death every night before going to sleep. Proof of things is hard to come by.

[SnakeLord]

I like pointing out that nothing is, in fact, provable to 100%.

While interesting, it's completely pointless. People can still get evidence for things. Theist's faith has a grand total of none whereas things like going to sleep and thinking your computer will turn on when you push the button have ample. No, it doesn't make it a guarantee, but it isn't faith. Invisible space goblins - that's faith.

[(Q)]

Just the fact that you have faith that your computer won't self immolate either. I like pointing out that nothing is, in fact, provable to 100%.

True, but gods have been provable to 0%. See the difference in the distinction?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

They have been disprovable to 0% as well. Someone once suggested in another thread that,"Undetectable flying woolly mammoths caused the wind". Maybe. Maybe it's just a viewpoint that, yes anything is possible, versus a viewpoint that, without some evidence, nothing is possible. If that's the case it is a simple philosophical difference that we probably will not be able to overcome. I love you anyway, Snakelord and (Q).

[(Q)]

They have been disprovable to 0% as well.

As have Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Of course, you may want to change that number to something significantly higher than 0%.

Please remember that the Church has apologized for their treatment of Galileo and more recently, Darwin. In other words, they admitted their doctrine was wrong, doctrine that apparently came from god.

Yeah, we love you too. :cheers:

[Gustav]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" demonstrably, consistently brings good results; requires no leap of faith; is not problematic- What we like is self-evident, and there is abundant empirical evidence for the mutual benefit of good deeds to others, in accordance with that principle.


lets expand
outlined here is the context in which morality operates

The majority of any type of moral laws deal solely with society and the relationship of individuals within the society. If there is no society, a hermit cannot refuse being a member of the society and thus ceases to be a hermit. The sins and the good deeds alike—courage, kindness, greed, avarice—are all defined in context of relations between members of society (Andreas Rosenberg (http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/rosenberg.html))

we can of course extend the relation to non-humans as well. moving on ...

We can conclude that a rational argument shows that the moral code regulates the function of the society and that thus the axioms of the moral system, underpinning its consistency and perceived validity, must be found in context of the goals of the society in question. The moral calculus is the operator defining the history of a society. Or more theoretically, the timeline of happenings in the society is generated by the moral calculus of the society. (Andreas Rosenberg (http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/rosenberg.html))

more ....

*The axioms of the moral teachings used by a society are thus closely related to the projections of the future of the society. (Andreas Rosenberg (http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/rosenberg.html))

*However, the method of obtaining axioms for our moral calculations from projection of perceived goals of the society is a valid alternative for looking for absolute truth either established by scientific laws or revelations. We can start by looking at some quite general and adequate principles that, if applied, would move our society towards a state we humanists find to be in concordance with our understanding of an ideal state:

1. Survival of the human race and individual in a healthy biosphere.

2. Passage of accumulated knowledge to generations following ours.

3. Exploration of the unknown by individuals.

4 An eternal vigilance in balancing the freedom of the individual with the good of the society.

What we have argued here shows that all the necessary and desirable foundation blocks for a moral calculus can be derived solely by rational thought. This provides us with a moral system admittedly imperfect (as all human endeavors) but open-ended in the sense that it can be changed if the necessity arises.

The logic of the calculus presented can be challenged by claims that it is nothing but resurrection of the failed credo of modernism—ends justify means.

The separation of ends and means is artificial. Ends without means belong to mythology and means without ends to random chaos. We cannot define goals without explicit or implicit acceptance of means to reach them. Goals in our calculus have to be followed by clear restriction on the choice of means. We must remember that the weighing of the appropriateness of our actions, assuming full responsibility for them, is the central dogma of humanism which any form of moral calculus for humanists has to follow (Andreas Rosenberg (http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/rosenberg.html))

i suppose we could hash further and perhaps refine these axioms if need be.
so prior to formulating a code of ethics, we ask ourselves..."what do we want out of life?" "what kind of society would we like to be in?"

the the validity of all propositions in this dialogue will be governed by reason and logic. for instance, if the moral relatavist insists on the right to kill another on a whim, he too should be prepared to be arbitrally killed in return.
that is of course if one wishes to be self consistent in one's arguments

the golden rule and whatnot, y'know
here we have a methodology of sorts.....

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5926/regioncapturead2.jpg

The Logic of the Generality of Moral Principles (http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/2220129?seq=1) PDF (http://www.box.net/shared/r1yqs98cdp)


hazlitt expounds further.....

Real ethical problems arise; real conflicts arise; but they are comparatively rare, and they are not insoluble. It is often difficult to say with confidence what is the best solution, but it is seldom difficult to say what is the worse and what is the better solution. Humanity has, over the generations, worked out moral traditions, rules, principles, which have survived, and are daily reinforced anew, precisely because they do solve the great majority of our moral problems, precisely because it has been found that, by adhering to them, we best achieve justice, social cooperation, and the long-run maximization of happiness or minimization of misery. We do not have to solve our daily moral problems, or make our daily moral decisions, by a fresh and special calculus of the probable total consequences of each act or decision over an infinity of time. The traditional moral rules save us from this. Only where they conflict, or are patently inadequate or inapplicable, are we thrown back on the necessity of thinking out our problem afresh, without any "guiding principle" or "method of estimation." (Henry Hazlitt 1964 "The Foundations of Morality")

[Gustav]

Your definition includes the term you are trying to define. Thus it is circular. Further it is not agreed upon which also points to the possibility that it is based on faith.


i do not understand
please elaborate

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Actually, if you look at the doctrines you're talking about, the church doctrine was never "from scripture". The Bible is not a physics or biology textbook, It's more like a treatise on how God wants us to behave when dealing with both him and other men. Like I said, if you choose to believe, I'm sure that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny will visit the nearby local children at least. If you choose not to believe, I'm sure that it will escape your notice.

I guess you don't understand, I view all things as possible, so I play multiple choice for beliefs. You view no things as possible without proof. Thus you believe only that which you have proof of. By the earlier accepted definition, since mine wasn't good enough, that means that you have faith in things. You have faith that if you bite your finger, you will feel pain. If you don't, I suggest you seek evidence for it.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Gus! I hate it when you do that! Bad Kitty!

[SnakeLord]

I love you anyway, Snakelord and (Q).

You're deluded.

[Gustav]

Considering something "good" or "bad", according to our own moral compass, requires no "faith" as it is purely subjective.


crap. it is never left up to one's own moral compass. one's conduct is defined and governed by well established, objective principles

There is no objective morality.
There is no objective notion of good and bad: one person's act of good is another's act of bad.


crap
a common biologic system ensures that is not the case



Ever since our ancestors, the macrotermitine termites, achieved ten-kilogram weight and larger brains during their rapid evolution through the late Tertiary Period, and learned to write with pheromonal script, termitic scholarship has elevated and refined ethical philosophy. It is now possible to express the imperatives of moral behavior with precision. These imperatives are self-evident and universal. They are the very essence of termitity. They include the love of darkness and of the deep, saprophytic, basidiomycetic penetralia of the soil; the centrality of colony life amidst the richness of war and trade with other colonies, the sanctity of the physiological caste system; and the evil of personal rights (the colony is ALL!); our deep love for the royal siblings allowed to reproduce; the joy of chemical song; the aesthetic pleasure and deep social satisfaction of eating feces from nestmates' anuses after the shedding of our skins; and the ecstasy of cannibalism and surrender of our own bodies when we are sick or injured (it is more blessed to be eaten than to eat).

the termite's way of life (http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/eow3.htm)

;)

/cackle

[(Q)]

The Bible is not a physics or biology textbook, It's more like a treatise on how God wants us to behave when dealing with both him and other men.

Yes, I know, I brought many of those reprehensible, immoral and cruel examples to your attention when you first arrived.


I guess you don't understand, I view all things as possible, so I play multiple choice for beliefs.

Yes, but what you don't take into consideration is the probability of all things as possible. The "possibility" of gods existing is 50/50 or something along that line. The "probability" of gods existing is infinitesimally minuscule. Big difference.

You view no things as possible without proof. Thus you believe only that which you have proof of. By the earlier accepted definition, since mine wasn't good enough, that means that you have faith in things. You have faith that if you bite your finger, you will feel pain. If you don't, I suggest you seek evidence for it.

You create a non-sequitor by comparing things that do in fact exist (pain, fingers, biting) with that which has never been shown to exist (supernatural) when you talk about faith. There is a clear distinction between them.

A Muslim and a Christian will agree to have faith their fingers will hurt if they bite them, but do they have faith in each others gods?

[Cris]

Simon,

I think the issue raised in the thread is that we all believe in things that are either not tested, not testable or both. From there we are relying on intution, or guesses at liklihood, or faith.No. You don't understand yet. There is never a case when you HAVE to believe something when there is no evidence or if there is evidence but it is probabilistic then you can simply withhold BELIEF and simply state a suspicion.

I repeat - there is never a case when you have to believe something.

[Gustav]

Gus! I hate it when you do that! Bad Kitty!

:)
go back and insert quote into your post

[Betrayer0fHope]

If you trust people that is a type of faith, If an Atheist trusts in something without hard evidence then that means he has faith in that manner.

You have no proof that your partner has stayed faithful to you unless you keep him/her locked up in a cage. Yet you would have faith they are faithfull despite the fact that you have no evidence to back up that claim.

If a loved one tells you what they are thinking is true and you believe them, you have faith they are telling the truth, because again you can present no hard evidence they are telling the truth.


peace.

If I had proof that God has existed for as long as I have lived, will you consider that proof enough that God exists? That's the type of faith atheists have, not the faith theists have.

[Simon Anders]

Simon,

No. You don't understand yet. There is never a case when you HAVE to believe something when there is no evidence or if there is evidence but it is probabilistic then you can simply withhold BELIEF and simply state a suspicion.

I repeat - there is never a case when you have to believe something.

Are you sure about that?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

You're deluded.

This is news to whom? <smooches>

[Simon Anders]

i do not understand
please elaborate
Well you must have gotten the circular part since the word good was used to at least once as part of defining good.

As for the second.

A Christian could very well think that they would like to have their soul saved were they not already and see selling Jesus to an atheist as following the 'do unto others rule.....'

For example.

Or masochists.

Or how about this one...

How many parents - who were smacked around as children - think that it was good for them and taught them discipline and thus follow that rule when using the rod against their own children.

So the rule itself does not help. It can be twisted to justify pretty much all behavior.

'If I was a pathetic wretch like you, I would want to be put out of my misery.'

But this weakness in the rule is a secondary problem - which relates to the the main problem of circularity because 'good' is floating on a stack of elephants each named 'good'.

Take 'good' - out of his definition and see what you are left with.

[Simon Anders]

Moral judgements are an irrelevancy in this topic - a red herring.
Considering something "good" or "bad", according to our own moral compass, requires no "faith" as it is purely subjective.


Perhaps, but not one thinks that. They may say it while intellectualizing - in a certain moment - but they do not believe their moral positions are merely subjective. They may have moral positions they consider merely subjective, but everyone I have ever met felt that at least in regard to certain moral positions they knew damn well what was good or what was bad.

This is includes the participants in the thread that I am familiar with.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Yes, I know, I brought many of those reprehensible, immoral and cruel examples to your attention when you first arrived.




Yes, but what you don't take into consideration is the probability of all things as possible. The "possibility" of gods existing is 50/50 or something along that line. The "probability" of gods existing is infinitesimally minuscule. Big difference.



You create a non-sequitor by comparing things that do in fact exist (pain, fingers, biting) with that which has never been shown to exist (supernatural) when you talk about faith. There is a clear distinction between them.

A Muslim and a Christian will agree to have faith their fingers will hurt if they bite them, but do they have faith in each others gods?



I was unaware that faith in the supernatural was what the goal was here. Will a muslim and a christian have faith in each other's God? I guess it depends on the individual. I don't know that much about Islam, except that it is loosely abrahamic, therefore same God.

I was of the understanding that Atheists were being stated as not having faith in anything, and I elieve that point has been refuted. Now, whether an atheist has faith in anything supernatural, I would imagine not. An atheist is usually not much on the supernatural. It could be argued that they have faith that the supernatural does not exist, if you wish.

As far as possibility vs probability, I think this is an argument over whether an orange is round or a sphere. There is a 1 in 6 probability that a 6 sided die will come up on 1. There is a 1 in 6 possibility that a six sided die will come up on 1. If there is a possibility that God exists, there is a probability that God exists. Not 50/50 of one and a lesser percentage of the other. If you have some new evidence that we haven't succesfully beaten to smithereens, I welcome it.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Gus-I'm still figuring out the controls of this thing. I wouldn't know what to quote.

[Simon Anders]

Some might say that believing faith that your friend will help you in your hour of need is "faith", but as has been stated this is inductive logic based on plenty of evidence (all your experiences of this friend, for example).


And if faith in God has brought someone, relief, understanding, they quit drugs, they repeatedly feel 'His' presence when they pray...ie. inductive evidence that having faith in God works for them

why should they stop?

I can see where none of this is evidence FOR YOU. And I can see why it would be odd to grant a tax free status to a group of them, but we all work on faith.

The friend who has helped in the past may in fact be evil - but most people do not IN REALITY place an asterisk beside their friend's character. They have faith that the experiences they have had indicate this person is good. They do not think in terms of statistics and inductive processes. They have drawn conclusions. In fact most people tend to think in terms of conclusions, whatever they say

in those very special types of conversations where one takes a metaposition towards oneself.

Most of the atheists I know - many friends, one parent - have morals that do not have asterisks, even if in a philosophical conversation - which makes up what .0000001 % of their lives - they might admit that logically their position is merely subjective.

[Gustav]

How many parents - who were smacked around as children - think that it was good for them and taught them discipline and thus follow that rule when using the rod against their own children.

So the rule itself does not help. It can be twisted to justify pretty much all behavior.


i'll grapple with the rest later
this however....

the presumption is one of rationality
are those incidents the norm or exceptions to the rule?
how much reasoning do you think went into that conclusion?
i mean .... spare the rod and spoil the child?

surely that has been thoroughly debunked as a viable and productive method in child rearing practices?

do you really think one could advocate that and not fall foul of other laws that safeguard freedoms for the individual?

is that not goddamn child abuse?
will we not lock these people up if social services are privy to the beatings?

twist all you want
it is deviant thought and aberrant behavior
the will be consequences and penalties meted out

here is a somewhat similar situation where social customs are blindly accepted and practiced without any question of relevance or rationale

"Balikci (1967: 623) has discussed the various cultural strategies, including child betrothal, adaption, and importation of wives, that were employed to ensure satisfactory recruitment of females into the adult population. Interestingly, such practices existed alongside female infanticide, the very practice that contributed above all others to the shortage of women!"( Freeman, Milton M. R. (1971) A social and ecological analysis of systematic female infancide among the Netsilik Eskimo. American Anthropologist 73, 5: pp. 1013)

"There is reason to believe, however, that these explanations are post facto rationalizations, consequences of, rather than contributory to, female infanticide. For example, Rasmussen himself reports :the Netsilik never think of reasoning with themselves" about their beliefs, "but simply react to what some event or other may force upon their notice" (Ibid:206); and again, "It is said that it is so, and therefore it is so" (Ibid.: 207). A similar conclusion is reached by Steenhoven, who writes, with regard to the delay in conceiving while nursing: "But the Eskimo do not usually rationalize along these lines; they have just accepted the practice of infanticide as a custom" (Steenhoven 1962: 50). (Freeman, Milton M. R. (1971) A social and ecological analysis of systematic female infancide among the Netsilik Eskimo. American Anthropologist 73, 5: pp. 1014)[/i]

[Simon Anders]

the presumption is one of rationality
are those incidents the norm or exceptions to the rule?
how much reasoning do you think went into that conclusion?
i mean .... spare the rod and spoil the child?

surely that has been thoroughly debunked as a viable and productive method in child rearing practices? I believe there is one country in the world where it is illegal. It is widely practiced and if you start a thread here people will defend it. I think this has happened.

I think it is in fact rational to argue that hitting children is good. I do not think you can find a logical flaw. You can throw some studies at people. And they will come back with others.

I know it is wrong via intuition.

do you really think one could advocate that and not fall foul of other laws that safeguard freedoms for the individual?

is that not goddamn child abuse?
will we not lock these people up if social services are privy to the beatings?
Not if they ritualize it. Kid over knee, hand brush or belt, admonishment....

twist all you want
it is deviant thought and aberrant behavior
the will be consequences and penalties meted out It is not my position. It is a postion opened up by 'do unto others....'. I believe these people are quite honest that they think they are preventing their children from having pain later in life - by becoming criminals, by lacking discipline.

I am not Gustav, making a case for corporal punishment. (a hint about where I live)

[Gustav]

lets assume we give kids and adults the same fundamental rights
a sanctity of person

ask the kid if it is good being beaten
ask an adult the same
never mind intuition
poll every kid

they will all say no
surely that feedback outta account for something, ja?
or should we formulate laws without considering who exactly we are formulating these for?

as for the golden rule ...... what do you give so much weight to exceptions? do we have to disregard that it works in most instances simply because of a masochistic few?

sorry simon
i am aware that you are not making the case :)

[Simon Anders]

lets assume we give kids and adults the same fundamental rights
a sanctity of person

ask the kid if it is good being beaten
ask an adult the same
never mind intuition
poll every kid

they will all say no
surely that feedback outta account for something, ja?
or should we formulate laws without considering who exactly we are formulating these for?

as for the golden rule ...... what do you give so much weight to exceptions? do we have to disregard that it works in most instances simply because of a masochistic few?

sorry simon
i am aware that you are not making the case :)
No prob.

Actually I think you find problems all over the place. I just hit on two off the top of my head.

general problems
1) many people OBVIOUSLY do not know what is good for them, they will then use the GR to do these things to other people
2) we are all different, what you want done to you does not always, regularly, usually match what I want done to me
3) many people will assume a kind of implicit, if I were confused like you are (or evil, etc.)

[Gustav]

general problems
1) many people OBVIOUSLY do not know what is good for them, they will then use the GR to do these things to other people
2) we are all different, what you want done to you does not always, regularly, usually match what I want done to me
3) many people will assume a kind of implicit, if I were confused like you are (or evil, etc.)


??

ok
what then?
what are the implications of those facts and how do we as a society deal with them?

[Gustav]

heh
even masochists have safe words

[Sarkus]

And if faith in God has brought someone, relief, understanding, they quit drugs, they repeatedly feel 'His' presence when they pray...ie. inductive evidence that having faith in God works for them

why should they stop?They certainly have evidence that the act of "having faith" provides benefit - but that in itself is no evidence for the truth of the tenet of that "faith".

The evidence they have is not rationally attributable to the tenet of their faith (i.e. belief in God), but rather their "faith" is a focal for assisting with psychological matters that may in turn lead to benefit in physical matters (e.g. providing focus/reason for giving up drugs).

Why stop? Why indeed, if it is the only way they have found to assist in helping their life. But this does not make the tenet of the faith correct.


The friend who has helped in the past may in fact be evil - but most people do not IN REALITY place an asterisk beside their friend's character. They have faith that the experiences they have had indicate this person is good. They do not think in terms of statistics and inductive processes. They have drawn conclusions.I miss the point of the asterisk, sorry.

You are also flinging "faith" around to cover both religious faith (zero evidence rationally attributable to the tenet of the faith) and colloquial faith (probability of accurate assessment of outcome given evidence attributable to the matter).

Yes, everyone has "faith" if you use the term to cover both - but there is this distinct difference that needs to be stated, else people use the term inappropriately.

"Faith" in the existence of God is based on no evidence that can be rationally attributable to that tenet.
"Faith" in such things as the behaviour of friends is based on vast amounts of evidence that can be rationally attributed to the matter - such as interactions with that person, and interactions with people in general etc.

Do you see the difference?

[Simon Anders]

They certainly have evidence that the act of "having faith" provides benefit - but that in itself is no evidence for the truth of the tenet of that "faith". And the same could be said for the friend's goodness. Further, my main point was, their faith is working for them.

The evidence they have is not rationally attributable to the tenet of their faith (i.e. belief in God), but rather their "faith" is a focal for assisting with psychological matters that may in turn lead to benefit in physical matters (e.g. providing focus/reason for giving up drugs). Well, that is a hypothesis. Even if true it might not be in their best interests to think so. And last, it is merely a hypothesis, especially when describing what is happening to this or that individual. I would guess, also that you decided this was true via intution, especially since you present is as a general description, implying all cases - ie. not one of these people could possibly be correct. So you feel you sensed a pattern in human behavior/cognition, based on your experiences of people and perhaps some reading in psychology. You decided that from this evidence that potentially relates to many people, no individual is actually relating to God and drawing a correct conclusion from their own experiences. (which, by the way, makes you a hard atheist, rather than simply someone who lacks a belief in God). So you have posited the existence an entity or a process in the minds of all believers. I cannot see how this is any less faith based or intution based than a believer positing the existence of his or her entity based on a pattern they feel they recognize both within their private experience of themselves and God's presence, but also in reaction to existence as a whole. (again, do not confuse this with an argument for God's existence. I am not saying that their experiences and intuition IN ANY WAY AT ALL constitutes evidence or proof for you. I am saying that as far as I can tell people throw around their intuition ALL THE TIME, everyone. They just tend not to notice it because 'THEY ARE RIGHT')

Why stop? Why indeed, if it is the only way they have found to assist in helping their life. But this does not make the tenet of the faith correct. That is another issue. And from a constructivist perspective, perhaps not an important one.


I miss the point of the asterisk, sorry.

You are also flinging "faith" around to cover both religious faith (zero evidence rationally attributable to the tenet of the faith) and colloquial faith (probability of accurate assessment of outcome given evidence attributable to the matter).

There is, often, an assessment of probablity based on faith. We all do this.

Yes, everyone has "faith" if you use the term to cover both - but there is this distinct difference that needs to be stated, else people use the term inappropriately. I tend to prefer the term 'intuition' to cover both.

"Faith" in the existence of God is based on no evidence that can be rationally attributable to that tenet.
"Faith" in such things as the behaviour of friends is based on vast amounts of evidence that can be rationally attributed to the matter - such as interactions with that person, and interactions with people in general etc. Again, the person who feels the presence of God when they pray and has had good as promised experiences has evidence ONLY FOR THEMSELVES, but there it is, evidence. Unless you want to assert that in every event where we cannot determine something via empirical testing that other people can verify, then I, personally, should not believe, I see no reason not to consider this evidence. Only for that particular person. Not as evidence to convince others.

Do you see the difference?I am so intimate with your position, it is almost not worth having the discussion unless something new comes up soon.

Do you really think that none of your cherished beliefs were arrived at via mere intuition?

How did you come to the conclusion that animals have feelings and intentions? For a long time this was considered impossible to know by scientists. Now it is generally accepted in science.

Me, I formed my belief that animals have these qualities via intution. Did you form yours via careful study of scientific research? Did you draw the conclusion via intution, despite scientific opinion until perhaps the 70's that it was ok to assume this?

Do you see what I am getting at?

[Simon Anders]

??

ok
what then?
what are the implications of those facts and how do we as a society deal with them?
Well, it's a bit off topic, but we certainly do not assume that the Golden Rule, even if agreed upon by a majority, is full protection or anything near that.

My main issue with his raising of the Golden Rule as an apriori valueless rule that does not require faith to KNOW that it is right
does not work.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Wow. Say more words. It sounds like Simon is winning, but it's close. I think he has something up his sleeve.

[Simon Anders]

heh
even masochists have safe words
And this is where they are ahead of the game compared to people who do not realize they are masochists, like Republicans or sexists.

[Simon Anders]

Why stop? Why indeed, if it is the only way they have found to assist in helping their life. But this does not make the tenet of the faith correct.


Tucked into the bolded portion, I would argue, is faith. Implicit in it - and correct me if I am wrong - is the idea that it would be better if something more rational could serve the purpose of weaning them from drugs, etc., but, if they that is the last resort, so be it.

Now I bolded my 'better'. Why because it has within it an objective good. It would be better, in general.

I think, when pressed, or even merely asked, most atheists - or 'rationalists' - would say, 'Oh, yes, my moral judgments are subjective.' But I do not experience them as functionally believing this. It seems to me they think they can recognize the good, in this case in general. Note the definitive form 'the' good.

So to me there is faith in
1) what would be best for everyone - ie. it would be better if some you consider more rational worked for him
and
2) you know that in fact a certain psychological process is creating the illusion that all people - like our hypothetical ex-addict and other never having been addicted believers - who claim to be experiencing God are wrong. Which actually means two articles of faith in one:
a) none of them are in contact with God
b) you know what the actual thing they are experiencing is. ('thing' being a reification of the psychological process you are positing)
2)

[Simon Anders]

A large parallel drawn: (a true story)

A woman feels weak and has muscle aches and has had these symptoms for several months. She goes to her doctor and tells him she is sick. He tests her and then refers her to a hospital where she sees some specialists and has more tests. Everything is negative. Her doctor tells her that it is psychological and recommends a psychiatrist.

She refuses to go to the psychiatrist. She knows she is sick.

She goes to a doctor of Chinese medicine. In Chinese medicine they treat the patient and not the illness. He gives her herbs and after a few weeks she feels quite a bit of improvement but still feels quite sick.

Let's see what we've got.
A person with a private experience of _____________(something)
Experts tell her there is no ___________ but it is really a psychological _________(something).
She sticks to her belief (faith/intuition) that she is sick.

Years later she is tested for Epstein barr virus and the test is positive. Both the public health phenomenon and the testing developed after her initial visits to the doctors, though it does take years after the discovery of the virus for her doctor to admit that she was, in fact, sick.

The herbs she was given by the Chinese doctor included herbs that stimulate the immune system and one of them is antiviral - as shown in tests by Western medical professionals, but it was not these tests that led Chinese doctors to prescribe these herbs to people with her symptom and temperment type.

Was she rational all the way through? Yes.
Should the doctors have simply believed her self-evaluation? No. They made understandible mistakes, though perhaps could have been more open to the possibility they were missing something.

How can both sides be rational?
Because the evidence she had, only she had access to in its full form.

There was evidence she was ill but it was not good evidence for some people at that time, in that culture.

The same can be said for intuition based on pattern recognition, expecially in cases where empirical testing is either hard or not done.

The intuition that something cannot exist and intutions where one guesses the liklihood of things existing tend to be faith based.

[audible]

Do you really think that none of your cherished beliefs were arrived at via mere intuition?What beliefs, specify. Or are you referring to the knowledge one acquires, during the course of their life. How did you come to the conclusion that animals have feelings and intentions?Through knowledge, learnt. Me, I formed my belief that animals have these qualities via intution. That would only be true if you had NEVER encountered animals and how they react to certain stimuli. If you had encountered animals prior to this sudden epiphany then you could not call it intuition.
Do you see what I am getting at?No, as it makes no sense.

[Sarkus]

And the same could be said for the friend's goodness. Further, my main point was, their faith is working for them.When you do not distinguish between the types of faith (i.e. between faith based on rational evidence and faith not based on rational evidence) then, as I have said, all people have "faith".

What I am trying to explain is that there is a difference between these two "faiths" - but you seem not to agree.

Well, that is a hypothesis. Even if true it might not be in their best interests to think so. And last, it is merely a hypothesis, especially when describing what is happening to this or that individual. I would guess, also that you decided this was true via intution, especially since you present is as a general description, implying all cases - ie. not one of these people could possibly be correct.Of course I can not lay claim to an objective truth of all cases - to think that that is what I am doing is disingenuous. I was making a point to explain that just because "faith works" does not mean the tenets of the faith are correct.
And it was not through intuition that I decided it was true for some people but because I am related to some of those people - and have witnessed it and talked to many people - most of whom don't question their faith precisely "because it works" - i.e. it gives them the psychological benefits they need, no matter how small or large.

So you feel you sensed a pattern in human behavior/cognition, based on your experiences of people and perhaps some reading in psychology. You decided that from this evidence that potentially relates to many people, no individual is actually relating to God and drawing a correct conclusion from their own experiences. (which, by the way, makes you a hard atheist, rather than simply someone who lacks a belief in God).:D
I feel you need to understand what being a weak or strong atheist actually is. Just to put you straight, I am a weak atheist as opposed to strong atheist. Nowhere in these discussions have I laid claim that God does not exist, or either implied that God categorically does not exist. God might exist. But I am not going to start with the assumption he does unless there is evidence rationally attributable to that God. I have seen none, nor have I heard of any such evidence that would lead anyone rationally to believe in God before a more mundane answer (i.e. rationally not God).

So you have posited the existence an entity or a process in the minds of all believers. I cannot see how this is any less faith based or intution based than a believer positing the existence of his or her entity based on a pattern they feel they recognize both within their private experience of themselves and God's presence, but also in reaction to existence as a whole.I have evidence that at least one person fits my hypothesis - and from that I can apply it as a rational possibility to others.
The claim of an entity (God) has no such evidence to begin with.

(again, do not confuse this with an argument for God's existence. I am not saying that their experiences and intuition IN ANY WAY AT ALL constitutes evidence or proof for you. I am saying that as far as I can tell people throw around their intuition ALL THE TIME, everyone. They just tend not to notice it because 'THEY ARE RIGHT')You said you use "intuition" to cover both forms of faith (with or without evidence) - but unless you clearly differentiate between the two I feel this discussion will get nowhere - as whenever you use "faith" or "intuition" you could be describing either. Yes - everyone has "faith" or "intuition" in things when based on evidence.

There is, often, an assessment of probablity based on faith. We all do this.Not when "faith" is based on zero evidence. We can only make probability assessments based on evidence.
"Faith" without evidence is irrational.


Again, the person who feels the presence of God when they pray and has had good as promised experiences has evidence ONLY FOR THEMSELVES, but there it is, evidence.And this is the point of evidence that can be rationally attributed to the tenet of the faith / belief.

In your example given the evidence leads rationally to an obeyance of the laws of probability.
Further, the "power of prayer" - i.e. the positive mental attitude that stems from the act of praying can not be ignored.
To establish whether the "good things" are attributable rationally only to God one must remove all possibility of more rational explantions.
If one does not go through that exercise, and accepts the evidence as evidence for God (or whatever the tenet of their faith is) then they are acting irrationally.

If I pray to God for safe passage across the road, and duly arrive safely, is this evidence for God?
Or evidence of my ability to monitor traffic and to assess when it is safe to cross? Or a plethora of other more rational explanations than "God exists"?

Unless you want to assert that in every event where we cannot determine something via empirical testing that other people can verify, then I, personally, should not believe, I see no reason not to consider this evidence. Only for that particular person. Not as evidence to convince others.People can consider what they want as evidence - but calling it evidence for X and it rationally being so are different things.

I am so intimate with your position, it is almost not worth having the discussion unless something new comes up soon.And yet your arguments seem to suggest otherwise.

Do you really think that none of your cherished beliefs were arrived at via mere intuition?You have already said that you use "intuition" to cover all forms of "faith" - i.e. those based on evidence and those not based on evidence - and I have already said that everyone has the former. I try not to have the latter - which is why I am an agnostic atheist.

How did you come to the conclusion that animals have feelings and intentions? For a long time this was considered impossible to know by scientists. Now it is generally accepted in science.

Me, I formed my belief that animals have these qualities via intution. Did you form yours via careful study of scientific research? Did you draw the conclusion via intution, despite scientific opinion until perhaps the 70's that it was ok to assume this?

Do you see what I am getting at?You reached your conclusion through following the evidence - evidence that was there for anyone and everyone to see. I make no excuses for poor science in the past.
This is still very different to faith in such things as the existence of God - where there is no evidence yet provided that can rationally be attributed to God's existence.

If the point of your argument is that you think there is evidence that can rationally be attributable to God's existence...?

[codanblad]

No but you can't be a hypocrite and put religious people down for having faith in god, when you have faith yourself in so many other aspects.


peace.

i personally don't criticise faith when its justifiable confidence in something, blind faith and leaps of faith are what i have a problem with. my faith in my gf has come about due to her consistent expressing of certain values etc, i like the odds.

perhaps more importantly, atheists don't use, or use less, faith to justify anything immoral or unintelligent.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Yet another desperate pathetic attempt to trap atheists into a GOTCHA.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Not really. I would like for Atheists to be precise, myself. Atheists have no faith in supernatural things. Ok. Atheists have no faith in anything. Not so. Even faith based on previous experience is still faith. I assumed that was the topic of conversation. No Gotcha. Just be more precise in your declarations.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Yes really.
I'd like everyone to be more precise, logical & clear about everything all the time! (Well, except for joking)
Belief or not in some supernatural things is unrelated to being an atheist. An atheist may believe in reincarnation or ghosts or whatever as long as they don't believe in gods.
Our language isn't precise enough for this. Some have shown how trust & faith are different but others won't accept it. Without something which I call trust, 99% of people could not function. This is yet far different from faith in gods.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I have not been privy to the discussion about faith not being the same as trust. Without any knowledge of it, my only comment would be that faith in the existence of God does not necessarily mean trust in God. Faith, by definition, is belief in something without evidence. I have black sneakers. I ask you now to make a decision. Do you trust me enough to have faith in my statement? You have no way to verify if I have sneakers at all. If you lack faith in my statement, because you do not trust me, does that detract from the truth of my statement, if it is true?