Atheists - why?

Post Reply New Topic

What he was saying was that he keeps his faith strong by repeatedly revisiting the point that the apparent truth told to him by his empirical senses and worldly reasoning is like apples and oranges to his spiritual faith.

A dogma, on the other hand, is an absolute certainty that worldly senses and reasoning must somehow verify something that is normally just taken on faith. Under a dogma, one assumes that something that somebody else fervently believes in is rubbish if it that belief happens to contradict with the dogma.

Christian faith, observed properly, is a practice in which one proves to oneself that one will remain loyal to a faith no matter what the cosequences or seeming realities are. To a Christian, it is something to draw on in times when one has a number of perfectly sound, intelligent reasons feel certain that life will never ever get better. To practice faith is to believe that somehow it is all worthwhile, even if it doesn't ever seem to get better. It may fly in the face of logic to believe there is a God in heaven and an eternal afterlife, but so does any form of hope.

But some of us feel that it's like putting sugar into a perfectly acceptable cup of coffee. Sure, it has bitter notes, but that's a part of the overall complexity of the roast. Conflict is part of a good story. Romeo and Juliet wouldn't be the same if we added a footnote saying, "Oh, but Mercurio didn't really die. He's really alright somewhere." It wouldn't be as sweetly tragic.

Or maybe some of us just have a natural aptitude for slipping into an inner fantasy land, like I do, where it doesn't matter for a while what is or isn't actually possible in real life. Everyone isn't lucky enough to have an INTP personality type.

Awesome:

Your last post - while too involved for me to be willing in the agora to post and address n the detail it deserves - is illuminating.

While it would be absurd to deny there are other differences [like you say Occam is NOT arbitrary?! !! !!], some of wbhich are MOST interesting, I want to try to stick to the main issue.

Which is simply our differences on the meaning of the term "faith".

From your last, it becomes clear you use it in a very restricted sense, for a category which really does not exist in my schema:

"Faith is usually a conscious acceptance based upon emotional assurance or the insufficiency of evidence."

I suspect in a formal context you would want to reword that, but I am not handling this as a peer-reviewed venue and we can loosen our ties if we want [I never did - tie pulled up or change clothes is me].

Now I know from the literature that there are those [often but not exclusively ennea-1s] who claim they do or claim one can or should do just that: consciously choose to assent to a proposition. Ignore the basis for now, the point is the choice. It shows up a lot in evangelical materials - very clearly in the phrase "making a decision for Jesus"

But this is not the prime Christian definition of what I may call extraordinary faith, nor what I would call ordinary faith.

Now as you know my background is academic eastern American Anglophone, informed not only by wideranging reading of texts in several languages of which a minority derive from the last quarter of the 20th century, but also by extensive investigation and analysis of the lexica of several languages including those in which the scriptures and theologies of the major Abrahamic religions are expressed.

Faith [fides, Imaana, pistis, etc.] consistently ties in - in etymology and usage - to belief - trust - confidence. Not conviction, not decision, but acceptance of a proposition on a basis which rests not simply on an argument's appeal to logic or emotion, but includes a component of intuition and / or "common sense".

And that is how I use it. I am not conflating important distinctions, so far as I can see. Unless you insist on distinguishing conviction < concrete data and logic from conviction < charisma and emotion. But then, I am not talking about either of those.

As for general readings -

Well, we do different reading. You clearly do much more mod theoretical reading than I. Not to be helped.

If it IS any help, I think you will find that my terminology is not all that individual / exceptional.

No more than yours - which at times befuddles me.

"on a basis which rests on..." - MAN!! ! I am glad we are NOT operating in a formal venue!.

I'd even say that belief, still ends up suggesting something conscious. I "believe" X, suggests an awareness of what all is believed, but common sense often lacks this self-awareness. Even further, I am not *rejecting* non-emotional influences, only that words like "trust" and "confidence" and so on often tend to suggest an emotional relationship, whereas things like math are very rarely "trusted" they're just considered true.


I think you know that in Western discourse, the word "faith" has taken on a lot of meanings making it distinct from typical knowledge, so, any use you have has to reflect that. It doesn't matter how many roots in other languages are a certain way, each language can be quirky in its individual manner.


Mod theoretical?


I dunno, faith has taken on meanings that don't exactly mesh in with other words for faith, such as pistis and others... which is a real problem.


My terminology is divine. Stop flaunting your heresy.

For me, that kind of question immediately brings "The Tales of Robin Hood" to mind since the lowest of that particular society had its hope, sans miracles, placed in "King Richard's" return. But in reality, I suspect there are many adults today who still "really do believe" in "Santa Claus" even though they have since come to fully comprehend the impossibilities of his alleged feats ...

I will pass on the rest - even that last, since I have no faith in you, no conviction of your divinity, and little evidence anybody but ruveyn exists.

i will go straight to your interesting point:

"whereas things like math are very rarely "trusted" they're just considered true"

This is an interesting distinction. One does not have faith in math, believe in math. One does not decide to accept math. Possibly - probably? - one is convinced of math, since one gradually learns that set of relationships. Discovers math, perhaps.

I do not think that I, at least, consider math true. I should be more inclined to call math and the laws of physics real, rather than true. One makes true or false statements about those laws and relationships - they are not themselves true or false statements.

So yes, I would agree one's attitude to math and gravity is not faith. Nor reliance - I rely on my watch to remain accurate and my chair to uphold me, but I do not [except in common parlance] trust them, and while as objects they are real, their performance is not a reality. Is one's attitude to math common sense? I think not. Counting may be, but counting is hardly math, and one does not reach high school without leaving in the dust the parts of math that are commonsensical.

So - yet another kind of postulate. But secondary. If I stipulate that I exist, which involves ordinary, commonsensical if you will, faith, and accept that you exist, relying on my senses to provide data in which I may have ordinary faith, that makes two of us. And if special faith gives me to understand GOD IS [in my theology not God am, if anyone cares] that will make three. But the math, I think, remains descriptive tool.

I can honestly tell you that I do not exist. The Jesuits put mind control chips in you so you actually THINK I exist. This post will be about some other poster calling ME a racist just to trick you and the rest of this thread. Thanks guys...for not seeing this message HAHAHAHA

I laugh at your pathetic brainpower.

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Albert Einstein

Einstein should know. Mathematics is the self consistent investigation of concepts and those concepts can be based on fantasy or observation. The immense value of mathematics is based upon the discovery that some mathematics has proved very useful when observation has indicated that the concepts investigated are discovered to exist in observation but there is no guarantee that the observations are correct and that is where mathematics fails in science. Mathematics is not science and most certainly is not reality.

I seriously doubt your claim of nonexistence; I do not think I have any evidence that you do not exist; I do not accept the unsupported word of a hallucination.

I am not now nor have I ever been Catholic, and have had little to do with Jesuits. My chip is a wood chip gnawed by Punxsutawney Phil into a miniature prayer wheel spun by my venous blood with Tibetan prayers for the end of the world.

Since I am a proud charter member of an organization that never existed [see our charter or retroaxtive non existence in the U archives] I spit on your feeble striving after invisibility. We see your shadow.

you know, einstein wasn't particularly good at maths.

Aquinas was just a scholar, and his writings reflected the knowledge of his times. He wasn't the pope, he couldn't speak ex cathedra, and I'm sure the Catholic Church feels in no way bound by his arguments.

As far as I can tell your web site has no official connection to the Catholic Church either. However, I don't think it says what you are reading it to say, anyway. For example, the page at your link says:


In other words, the Catholic Church itself hasn't ever said that the existence of their god is provable solely through the use of logic, and the word "virtually" in your quote shows that the site doesn't really think it's provable either. Moreover, the header of that subsection talks about the "knowability" of their god, not "proof", and it's under a section that talks about "As known through faith" and "the God of revelation", not "As known through logic".

Given the choice of following your thoughts or those of Einstein I take the obvious path.

"your" religion? "Your" science?
Faith is an individual matter, but religion and science are both intrinsically social. Claims to individually determine what either consists of are entirely illegitimate, even for someone like the pope.

Albert might be happy to hear that.



I'd rather follow the thoughts of someone who could both explain and demonstrate how I am mistaken, than pay any attention to those smarmy, condescending religionists who seem Hell-bent on feeling superior to everyone else.

I noticed the absence of any section titled "Quod Erat Demonstrandum". It seems that even the Roman Catholic church has no authority or resources to demonstrate the existence of their god. Either that, or there is simply nothing to demonstrate in the first place!

And faith, of course, means subjugation of one's belief to some personal choice of authority or to some vague internal mental process which could be due to parental discipline, LSD, schizophrenia or constipation.