What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
User avatar
Nessa
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:10 pm
Christian: Yes
Creation Position: Undecided

What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Nessa » Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:05 pm

Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?

User avatar
Nessa
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:10 pm
Christian: Yes
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Nessa » Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:29 am

P.S This question is specifically for atheists or agnostics.

And what they think of faith in general

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2843
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Kenny » Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:34 pm

Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?


I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.

Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.

Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.

Ken

Mallz
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 759
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:34 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Mallz » Mon May 01, 2017 12:46 am

Welcome back Kenny! (sry for derailing, I'm done).

*edit: I should have read your post before responding :lol: I guess I would like to show you how you can test Jesus; something I try to get people to do all the time (and a lot of Christians..), but for some reason the thought leaves like a leaf in the wind as soon as the ego tries to justify why it shouldn't test Him. Do what Jesus says, test His promises, even. Treat Him like a person and how He asks to be treated. If you want to find out if He truly is real, then treat Him like that chair. But you can't even treat Him like that chair, because you can't even see the chair to exist, so how can you explore it, even? By learning about Him and doing as He says (including talking with Him). You can test Jesus, but you have to actually do it (not just think about it :lol: ).

User avatar
Nessa
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:10 pm
Christian: Yes
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Nessa » Mon May 01, 2017 2:04 am

Kenny wrote:
Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?


I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.

Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.

Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.

Ken


What about a plane? have you ever flown for the first time?

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2843
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Kenny » Mon May 01, 2017 5:47 am

Nessa wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?


I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.

Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.

Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.

Ken


What about a plane? have you ever flown for the first time?


Excellent point! The first time I flew in an airplane, my heart was racing when we left the ground; probably because half of the reasons I trust my chair doesn’t apply to the plane. I was not able to inspect the plane and understand how it works as I can the chair. All I had to go on was the track record of countless other people who flew on planes. So my faith in airplanes at that time was only based on a consistent track record of other people’s experiences. I suspect the first person to ever fly on a plane was the inventor and he knew the airplane as well as I knew the chair I am sitting on, so his faith was based on empirical evidence. Since then countless other people had faith based on his experiences, and I had faith based on countless other people's experiences.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2843
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Kenny » Mon May 01, 2017 5:51 am

Mallz wrote:Welcome back Kenny! (sry for derailing, I'm done).

*edit: I should have read your post before responding :lol: I guess I would like to show you how you can test Jesus; something I try to get people to do all the time (and a lot of Christians..), but for some reason the thought leaves like a leaf in the wind as soon as the ego tries to justify why it shouldn't test Him. Do what Jesus says, test His promises, even. Treat Him like a person and how He asks to be treated. If you want to find out if He truly is real, then treat Him like that chair. But you can't even treat Him like that chair, because you can't even see the chair to exist, so how can you explore it, even? By learning about Him and doing as He says (including talking with Him). You can test Jesus, but you have to actually do it (not just think about it :lol: ).


Thank you. I appreciate your welcome back, your invitation and instructions on how to trust Jesus, your kind words and good intentions. Thank-you


Ken

Hortator
Senior Member
Posts: 743
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 5:00 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ohio

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Hortator » Mon May 01, 2017 6:54 am

Kenny, tell us again about empirical morals. :stirthepot:

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5731
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Byblos » Mon May 01, 2017 7:19 am

Kenny wrote:
Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?


I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.

Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.

Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.

Ken


But that's the height of hypocrisy kenny (intentional or otherwise). You certainly don't employ the same logic to a host of other things, one of which you've already commented on, i.e. flying on an airplane for the first time. Yes, you were terrified as anyone would be, but you did it anyway. Why? Because you trust that others have done it and their experience was pretty reliable. In other words, you trusted the historical record of reliable airplane flight to guide your belief. You employ the same reasoning with any historical figure or event, The conquests of Alexander the Great and Napoleon, the Gettysburg Address. You take them at face value as historical facts even though you have no way of actually verifying their historical accuracy. And yet you do not extend the same courtesy to the biblical account which is just as much an historical account as the others, if not more. Why is that kenny?
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2843
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Kenny » Mon May 01, 2017 11:27 am

Hortator wrote:Kenny, tell us again about empirical morals. :stirthepot:

Empirical morals? I've never heard of the term; sounds like a contradiction in terms. In what context did you hear this term used?

Ken

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2843
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Kenny » Mon May 01, 2017 11:32 am

Kenny wrote:
Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?


I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.

Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.

Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.

Ken


Byblos wrote: But that's the height of hypocrisy kenny (intentional or otherwise). You certainly don't employ the same logic to a host of other things, one of which you've already commented on, i.e. flying on an airplane for the first time. Yes, you were terrified as anyone would be, but you did it anyway. Why? Because you trust that others have done it and their experience was pretty reliable. In other words, you trusted the historical record of reliable airplane flight to guide your belief.


Perhaps the Airplane was not a good comparison because the ability of an airplane to fly is not contingent on everything else being unable to fly. Airplanes don’t insist they are the only ones able to fly, and everything else such as the Helicopter, Glider, Rocket, Jet, birds, etc. can’t; they have no interest in what all the other flying machines are doing; they only make claims on what THEY do.
With religions, not only do they have to be right, but everybody else has to be wrong. That (along with other things) makes it a bit harder to accept.

Byblos wrote: You employ the same reasoning with any historical figure or event, The conquests of Alexander the Great and Napoleon, the Gettysburg Address. You take them at face value as historical facts even though you have no way of actually verifying their historical accuracy. And yet you do not extend the same courtesy to the biblical account which is just as much an historical account as the others, if not more. Why is that kenny?
[/quote]

There is an old saying; extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The idea that military leaders did what military leaders do is an ordinary claim; thus the evidence required is ordinary; (Actual documents of war/surrender, Signatures, etc.)
The idea that a religious leader not only did what religious leaders do, but he also preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I find that to be an extra ordinary claim; thus extra ordinary evidence would be required for such a claim.

Ken

User avatar
Nessa
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:10 pm
Christian: Yes
Creation Position: Undecided

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Nessa » Mon May 01, 2017 12:10 pm

Kenny wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Nessa wrote:Are all faiths valid? Do any hold truth?


I believe faith at its most basic level is to believe. Are any true? Are all valid? I don’t think so. I think faith backed up with empirical evidence is more valid than faith alone.

Right now I am sitting in a chair in front of this computer. Though I have faith this chair will hold me, I also have empirical evidence because I’ve sat in this chair many times before, I’ve sat in countless other chairs just like it many times before; and if I wished I could inspect the screws, the brackets, and everything else associated with this chair to confirm my belief that this chair will hold me when I sit in it.

Christians have faith in the divinity of Jesus. I don’t because I have no experience with Jesus, I know of no way to test the claims made about him, thus to me his divinity is an unverifiable proposition. So for me to have faith in what is said about Jesus is something “unseen” AKA blind faith.
So getting back to your question; is the faith many have in the divinity of Jesus as valid as the faith I have in this chair of which I sit? I say no; because the chair can be tested, the claims of Jesus cannot.
Your second question; do any hold truth?
I believe faith in this chair is justified due to the empirical evidence associated with it, as well as the history of its ability to do so.
But to have faith in what is said of Jesus would be to have faith in something that I cannot test; and for me that faith is not justified.

Ken


Byblos wrote: But that's the height of hypocrisy kenny (intentional or otherwise). You certainly don't employ the same logic to a host of other things, one of which you've already commented on, i.e. flying on an airplane for the first time. Yes, you were terrified as anyone would be, but you did it anyway. Why? Because you trust that others have done it and their experience was pretty reliable. In other words, you trusted the historical record of reliable airplane flight to guide your belief.


Perhaps the Airplane was not a good comparison because the ability of an airplane to fly is not contingent on everything else being unable to fly. Airplanes don’t insist they are the only ones able to fly, and everything else such as the Helicopter, Glider, Rocket, Jet, birds, etc. can’t; they have no interest in what all the other flying machines are doing; they only make claims on what THEY do.
With religions, not only do they have to be right, but everybody else has to be wrong. That (along with other things) makes it a bit harder to accept.

Byblos wrote: You employ the same reasoning with any historical figure or event, The conquests of Alexander the Great and Napoleon, the Gettysburg Address. You take them at face value as historical facts even though you have no way of actually verifying their historical accuracy. And yet you do not extend the same courtesy to the biblical account which is just as much an historical account as the others, if not more. Why is that kenny?

There is an old saying; extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The idea that military leaders did what military leaders do is an ordinary claim; thus the evidence required is ordinary; (Actual documents of war/surrender, Signatures, etc.)
The idea that a religious leader not only did what religious leaders do, but he also preformed acts outside the laws of nature, I find that to be an extra ordinary claim; thus extra ordinary evidence would be required for such a claim.

Ken


You are taking the plane analogy futher than I intended.

The old 'all paths lead to God' mentality...or this case many

But although several flying devices will get you to the same place, the bible says there is only one way to God.

Tho in a sense, all paths do lead to God..... judgement day.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5731
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Byblos » Mon May 01, 2017 12:39 pm

Kenny wrote:There is an old saying; extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.


Dear Lord, is this really what you're going with, one of Richard Dawkins' favorite meaningless quotes? But I understand kenny, sometimes it's easier to make extraordinary claims than to answer a simple question. :mrgreen:
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Philip » Mon May 01, 2017 2:51 pm

If one asked Dawkins what caused the universe to come into being, or what existed before all physical things - how would he likely answer?

Some answers he's given:

Seems as he at least sees the universe as a stunning miracle without adequate words:

Dawkins: "The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple -just physics and chemistry, just the scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not -the fact that life evolved out of literally nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing -is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."

Uh, the universe evolved out of "nothing?"

Dawkins: "It's an astonishing stroke of luck that we are here." That was Dawkins' evolutionary message at a recent speech to a packed auditorium at the Christchurch, New Zealand. "Every animal owes its existence to an astonishing list of contingencies that might not have happened."

But then his double talk begins:

Dawkins: "With so much chance and luck it might be thought that evolution itself is a process of pure chance, but nothing could be further from the truth." It was predictable, for example, that eyes and ears would develop in different species, and they had done so independently several times over."

Ah, evolution is predictable but astonishing and with mechanism produced by "astonishing" luck, entirely blind and randomly? It flabbergasts him, but nonetheless, he believes the universe and life could come from nothing, uncaused. Wow.

Dawkins: "Natural selection is the great engine of the predictable side of life, but it cannot start without certain prerequisites."

Ah, those annoying "prerequisites" for all that exists!

Back to exponentially crazy luck:

Dawkins: "There are billions and billions of planets out there, so there could be millions of planets that have life on them, but the origin of life could still be a staggeringly good stroke of luck."

Boy, that "nothing" everything originated from is truly something! It's got magical powers of origin - and thats' before it somehow gets lucky, exponentially beyond what math can fathom or that science can comprehend.

Dawkins believes in the miraculous alright - but he believes in the miraculous that can come from "nothing." Apparently, his definition of miraculous is far more liberal than mine is, and his faith, as to what is possible is illogically gigantic - my faith doesn't hinge upon the impossible or the illogical. His does!

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2843
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: What does 'having faith' mean to you?

Postby Kenny » Mon May 01, 2017 6:45 pm

What does Richard Dawkins have to do with the price of tea in China?

K


Return to “Questioning Non-belief”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests