http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
The very first meaning of the word:
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith
The very first meaning of the word:
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Faith means something rather more conceptual when you apply it to a religion, Phoe. Your faith in God is rather the central point in Christianity. Regarldess of the evidence available, you have faith God exists, and hence you know it, yes?
Now, take tables. You can see tables exist. Now, literally speaking, you could apply that dictionary definition to say that you have faith in tables.
But you really wouldn't see the sense in putting it that way, would you? When did it ever occur to you to have faith that tables exist?
Atheism is not an application of faith in the same way religion is.
But to have faith is also to know. I know tables exist, just as surely as I know God exists. And Omega ((sorry to use as an example, hun 😉)) knows that God does not exist just as surely as I know that He does.
((I like having debates! They're so much better than arguments 😄))
I have faith in the table.... 😉
I'm willing to bet you don't. In fact, I am willing to bet you never NEEDED faith in the table. Why go to the bother of having to simply believe in something when is existence is provable?
You know tables exist because the evidence is in front of you. But you only know God exists because your faith tells you so. That is why atheists agree with the existence, like you, of the table, but not God. They see the evidence. They don't have the faith.
Faith, when given an applicaiton a belief system, does not fit atheism. There is not single thing in atheism that is taken 'on faith'. Religion, on the other hand, is virutally built on the concept.
Phoenix> You don't know that God exists. You believe he/she/it does. There is a big diference. Sow me that God exists - then we can continue from there.
Or rather - you can't show that God exists. I not only disbelieve this entity, I do not think they can exist.
Of course you know tables exist. You an see them and touch them. You can neither see nor touch God.
I think Greek philosophers Epicureans have said it best. Although i dont fully agree with EVERY aspect of Epicurian philosophy, i do agree with one major...and it is:
The greatest purpose in life is contentment.
The greatest obsticle to contentment is fear.
The greatest fear is the fear of the gods
Therefore
The greatest evil is religion
Got to love Greeks 😄
Originally posted by Phoenix
My friend is an agnostic, and she says it is a hard place to be. An athiest truly believes that is not and cannot be a God. A Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/etc truly believes that there is an guiding Power, whether external or internal. However, an agnostic is not sure. My mate really envies my faith, and that of the athiests. You may say that an athiest has no faith, but they do, they have faith that no God exists.It is the uncertainty that upsets my friend, and she says she'd really like to be like me, a Christian, who knows that there is a God, and beleives it with all her heart, but she just can't.
NB Phoe, the traditional sense of being monotheistic meant that you HAD to believe that there could ONLY be the one God. A pagan could add Christ onto their pantheon and still be pagan... I would say that myths are not necessarily mutually exclusive so that would probably be a pagan view.
Originally posted by The Omega
Phoenix> You don't know that God exists. You believe he/she/it does. There is a big diference. Sow me that God exists - then we can continue from there.
Or rather - you can't show that God exists. I not only disbelieve this entity, I do not think they can exist.
Of course you know tables exist. You an see them and touch them. You can neither see nor touch God.
I can tell you I have no doubt in the existence of God. To have no doubt is to know. A difference to you, but not to me. I do not just beleive I know, just as I know that He loves me, and will always be there for me when I need Him.
You do not know this, or believe it. Our opinions differ, but that does not invalidate either of them.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think Greek philosophers Epicureans have said it best. Although i dont fully agree with EVERY aspect of Epicurian philosophy, i do agree with one major...and it is:[b]The greatest purpose in life is contentment.
The greatest obsticle to contentment is fear.
The greatest fear is the fear of the gods
Therefore
The greatest evil is religionGot to love Greeks 😄 [/B]
The greatest evil is to fear your God. I do not fear my God, I love Him, and love all His children. To fear God is to fear His children, which is the greatest evil. Organised religion is awful, I agree. As soon as you say that there is only one way of doing things, then you will punish those who do not follow that way, wehich is evil.
Mercedes Lackey once said "There is no one true Way."
I stand by that. My Way is not your Way, nor shall it ever be. I respect your Way, although I do not beleive it. ((This is not a specific you, just a general you 😉))
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm willing to bet you don't. In fact, I am willing to bet you never NEEDED faith in the table. Why go to the bother of having to simply believe in something when is existence is provable?You know tables exist because the evidence is in front of you. But you only know God exists because your faith tells you so. That is why atheists agree with the existence, like you, of the table, but not God. They see the evidence. They don't have the faith.
Faith, when given an applicaiton a belief system, does not fit atheism. There is not single thing in atheism that is taken 'on faith'. Religion, on the other hand, is virutally built on the concept.
But the table is not provable. The first class I ever had in philosophy, the teacher put a table in front of us and said "What is this?" when we said it was a table, he said "Prove it." we couldn't. Yes, we belive that it is a table, our senses tell us that it is a table, but senses can be fooled or confused.
Some people have a sense of God. Some do not.
Organized "religion is a form of brainwashing!"
Spirituality shouldn't feel like its mind control. If thats how some of you you feel I see why you have none, or a negative view of it. I personally dont subscribe to any of the organized religions, why do I need someone to tell me what should already be inside me? Religious leaders are supposed to help bring that wisdom out of you, not dictate what that wisdom is composed of.
I don't go to church. I go to Worship, which is a very different thing. We are a Christian Fellowship, and the Fellowship is as important as the Worship. They are all wonderful there. I have very little time to worship with them, because of A levels, so I am currently worshipping at home, but whenever I do have the time to go they treat me as if I had never been away! Everyone makes an effort to remember names, and no one is rude or cruel or callous.
I like churches, because I think they are beautiful, but i dislike church congregations. I find it very difficult to become accepted, to become integrated into the different groups. I never had that problem with the Fellowship, they welcomed me with open arms and open hearts.
Originally posted by Phoenix
But the table is not provable. The first class I ever had in philosophy, the teacher put a table in front of us and said "What is this?" when we said it was a table, he said "Prove it." we couldn't. Yes, we belive that it is a table, our senses tell us that it is a table, but senses can be fooled or confused.Some people have a sense of God. Some do not.
That is philosophical scepticism and, as handled in the recent thread opened about it, that is the most dull and pointless view to take about anything at all (and I am afraid it always loses respect from me when invoked); Descartes used it as a basis of self-examination, not as a means of viewing the world. You have SOLID EVIDENCE the table exists, evidence that forms part of a system via which this modern civilisation exists. You have no such evidence about God- instead you have faith. Your are, frankly, taking the mick if you try and equate the evidence behind the two.
Aside from anything else... if you didn't have any evidence for the table- could not see it, touch it, put things on it, see the process via which it was made- you would not believe it existed. You don't have evidence for God, but you do believe he exists, as you have that faith.
If you are going to invoke Philosophical scepticism in any argument, we may as well stop right now because anything we say at all at any point becomes worthless because you will invoke the possibility of doubt. It is an entirely pointless line to take as it denies just about everything. Fact is, you do not reject science in this world; I know you don't. You accept many many rules about existence- if you do not eat, you will die; if you stab someone, it will hurt them; you need money to survive in the world, and so on. By these logical rules that you accept, and most certainly do not apply scepticism to, you accept the table exists via a reasoned process of looking at available evidence. The mechanism by which you accept God exists is entirely different. There is no scientific evidence for it.
Belieivng in something because of evidence and believing in something because of faith, Phoe. No matter how much sceptiicsm you want to try and apply, if you accept things exist on these criteria- which you evidently do- then it has to be logically conceeded that you are accepting their existence for different reasons.