Atheists

[Pard]

Atheists. They do not like to consider themselves people of faith or religion. I'd have to say that they are faithful people. In general the type of faith I am talking about is the one a higher being or an after life or something that is higher than ourselves. In this meaning of faith, I most definitely see atheists as faithful and religious people.

How? Well, atheists are either right or wrong, ok? Either they are right and there is no god what so ever, or they are wrong and there is a god or a higher being or something on this line that leads into an after life. So, it must take something for them to view the glass half empty instead of half full, right? That something is faith.

In fact, in this capacity, I almost admire atheists because they have so much faith that they are willingly to accept that there is no after life at all. If they are wrong, they are screwed. If I am wrong, I am not screwed, I end just as the faithful atheists did.

Make sense?

 

[jasoncran]

The other thing many atheist put their faith in is scientists - they deem them to be final word on many aspects of nature, and defend their theories as zealously as we defend ours. But if you think about it, scientists have come up with some wacky theories over the centuries, and who knows what scientists 200 years from now will laugh at when talking about the theories of the 21st century.

some of those scientists werent athiests btw. ie the steady state universe theory was theorised by a christian, i believe.

 

[Pard]

The other thing many atheist put their faith in is scientists - they deem them to be final word on many aspects of nature, and defend their theories as zealously as we defend ours. But if you think about it, scientists have come up with some wacky theories over the centuries, and who knows what scientists 200 years from now will laugh at when talking about the theories of the 21st century.

Of course it's interesting to note that they will claim they do not have faith in these scientific principles, rather they understand them to be as true and factual as 2+2=4. It is also interesting to note that I understand my religion to be as true and factual as 2+2=4, and no doubt you, MA, feel the same about your religion.

 

[Ahuli]

The other thing many atheist put their faith in is scientists - they deem them to be final word on many aspects of nature, and defend their theories as zealously as we defend ours. But if you think about it, scientists have come up with some wacky theories over the centuries, and who knows what scientists 200 years from now will laugh at when talking about the theories of the 21st century.

It's called "learning"; building on knowledge and coming up with more knowledge. You know, like they didn't fly jet planes immediately?????

BTW, you didn't respond to my recent questions in the "I'm curious" thread. Do I know why you didn't?

 

[Ahuli]

[quote="Mujahid Abdullah":1pvduhek]The other thing many atheist put their faith in is scientists - they deem them to be final word on many aspects of nature, and defend their theories as zealously as we defend ours. But if you think about it, scientists have come up with some wacky theories over the centuries, and who knows what scientists 200 years from now will laugh at when talking about the theories of the 21st century.

Of course it's interesting to note that they will claim they do not have faith in these scientific principles, rather they understand them to be as true and factual as 2+2=4. It is also interesting to note that I understand my religion to be as true and factual as 2+2=4, and no doubt you, MA, feel the same about your religion.

Exactly. this why i call it their faith.

I can understand a Geologist firmly kowing his field and everything about his field, because he studies it everyday. but a regular atheist joe off the street does not study geology, he simply has faith in the geologist - Science is their religion and the scientists are their clergy.[/quote:1pvduhek]
Could you tell me why it is wrong for a scientist to have faith in his experiments?

 

[Pard]

well, not really, I s'posse. There is as much wrong in it as with MA believing in Islam, but to each his own.

 

[Pard]

Could you tell me why it is wrong for a scientist to have faith in his experiments?

Nothing is wrong with it, many atheists just dont recognize it. Many claim that they are driven by reason and logic, but in the end they just rely on the words of their clergy (scientists), just as a religious person does, but the religious person is honest about having faith without proof.

Well said.

 

[seekandlisten]

the religious person is honest about having faith without proof.

Some are. Some claim 'truth' without proof, which is a whole different scenario.

 

[seekandlisten]

Atheists. They do not like to consider themselves people of faith or religion.

That would be because, by definition, they are not. Although their are some that seem rather 'religious' by their views.

I'd have to say that they are faithful people. In general the type of faith I am talking about is the one a higher being or an after life or something that is higher than ourselves. In this meaning of faith, I most definitely see atheists as faithful and religious people.

Yet by that very definition an Athiest would not be a person of faith.

How? Well, atheists are either right or wrong, ok? Either they are right and there is no god what so ever, or they are wrong and there is a god or a higher being or something on this line that leads into an after life. So, it must take something for them to view the glass half empty instead of half full, right? That something is faith.

I can't say as I agree with your definition of faith. Am I being pessimistic or a 'glass half empty' type of person to not believe their isn't a unicorn living in my basement right now even if my neighbor claims it's true? Are you a 'glass half empty' type of person to say that the Hindu 'God' doesn't exist? When someone makes a claim without any evidence it's not 'faith' to not accept it.

faith definition:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

So really only 1 and 6 could represent an Athiest's 'faith' and each of these would need 'evidence' leading up to that 'faith'.

In fact, in this capacity, I almost admire atheists because they have so much faith that they are willingly to accept that there is no after life at all.

If I told you there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, would you go chasing rainbows just in case it were true?

If they are wrong, they are screwed. If I am wrong, I am not screwed, I end just as the faithful atheists did.

How do you come to this conclusion? Where does it say one must believe in an afterlife in order to be a part of it? The judgement that comes with this afterlife that you faithfully claim is done on hearts not theology according to your Bible.

Make sense?

Not really.

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

#6 applies to all as if you dont belief in something thats is something that beleive in. :D

athiest dont believe in god in that sense,but some have set of rules they live by.

 

[Ahuli]

Could you tell me why it is wrong for a scientist to have faith in his experiments?

Nothing is wrong with it, many atheists just dont recognize it. Many claim that they are driven by reason and logic, but in the end they just rely on the words of their clergy (scientists), just as a religious person does, but the religious person is honest about having faith without proof.

That is just your opinion. You have no proof for your theory and you rely on conjecture. Tell me how many of your "many" you have personally interviewed and can, without bias, report you are correct in your assumptions?

Say, when you consult a physician, do you rely on his words, etc.?

Faith without proof? There is too much wrong with this contention to bother.

Where is your answer to the OP of "I'm curious"? I believe I'm not the only one who would like to see you answer those questions. I also believe you will NOT answer; and I also believe I know why. :yes

 

[Ahuli]

Could you tell me why it is wrong for a scientist to have faith in his experiments?

Nothing is wrong with it, many atheists just dont recognize it. Many claim that they are driven by reason and logic, but in the end they just rely on the words of their clergy (scientists), just as a religious person does, but the religious person is honest about having faith without proof.

Well said.

Could you expound on what he said? Explain it? Thank you.

 

[jasoncran]

faith is one thing but worship is another. in regards to science.
the toe is worshipped by some rather than see as limited explanation that has some support. it has holes.

how does the personality form. or what makes us think, and where did the language come from if the process is driven by randomness? or limited randomness and having no intellenge guiding it. that takes some faith to accept that without looking for the solution to that problem.

 

[Ahuli]

I guess your right ahlui, when I go to a doctor I may check his credentials, and if they are from an accredited unversity and the state says he can practice medicine, I do have faith that he knows what hes doing, but if he were to prescribe some treatment for me that went against either my beliefs or my common sense I would probably seek a second or third or fourth oppinion.

But it seems you just want to debate me for debate sake - so do you have solid proof of your religious faith? you say faith without proof is a wrong contention, and you seem to side with the Atheists on the contention that they have no faith in scientists - only logical proof.

So rather than just saying Im wrong, tell us, why am I wrong?

Hidjamum, answer the questions. Or, say you can't.

 

[Ahuli]

faith is one thing but worship is another. in regards to science.
the toe is worshipped by some rather than see as limited explanation that has some support. it has holes.

how does the personality form. or what makes us think, and where did the language come from if the process is driven by randomness? or limited randomness and having no intellenge guiding it. that takes some faith to accept that without looking for the solution to that problem.

We are enjoined to learn and understand the earth we were given.

Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth†(Gen. 1:28).

God gave us the earth so we can study it and know it and make it work for us. Science is all about THAT. (Good thoughts, Jason.)

 

[jimmy_james]

What I see is a stumbling block amongst the religious is the actual understanding of Atheism. Atheism can't be a religion, now before you set the wolves on me I'll explain.

Atheism is an umbrella term for many different realms of religions and Philosophy, but isn't a religion itself. Just as Christianity is a theistic religion and Philosophy. Atheism is nothing more then the rejection of Theism. Theism is one of 3 catagories of world views such as: Naturalism, Theism, and Pantheism.

Now, and Atheist can be either a Pantheist or a Naturalist. This is where the confusion of terms comes into play. Many instantly categorize Atheists as Naturalists. Naturalism is the idea that the Universe has no supernatural forces, and it is all observable. Many Scientists are Naturalistic in practice of science but are theistic or pantheistic in world view. Scientists won't accept any explanation that isn't observable naturally, but they can still believe there are powers outside their observation. Kent Miller is a good example of this. He is a Christian that dosen't believe in Evolution, but accepts it and studies it because for science its the best answer we have for research purposes.


The other category is Pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that God is everything, or the Gods are everything. We are a part of God and he/she/it is a part of us. The idea that the soul is immortal and passes on forever in multiple forms is pantheistic. Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Doaists, Jains are examples of Pantheists. An example would be how Einstein was naturalistic in the sense of science but considered God to be the Universe, its power and its omniscient lines up with Pantheism. The only difference being that Einstein differed in the idea of the Immortal soul.


A Theist can be Anaturalistic, and Apantheistic. A Pantheist can be Atheistic and Anaturalistic. And a Naturalist can be Atheistic and Apantheistic.


The reason I believe many don't understand this is based on the West's limited knowledge and exposure to Pantheistic ideal of Ancient Europe and the Far East. Pantheism is very obscure in modern society of the West and only hints when New agers try and mimic it. Even though they tend to be ignorant of the long traditions and beliefs of the ancient religions of Hinduism, Shamanism, Taoism, and Buddhism.

 

[Oats]

What I see is a stumbling block amongst the religious is the actual understanding of Atheism. Atheism can't be a religion, now before you set the wolves on me I'll explain.

Atheism is an umbrella term for many different realms of religions and Philosophy, but isn't a religion itself. Just as Christianity is a theistic religion and Philosophy. Atheism is nothing more then the rejection of Theism. Theism is one of 3 catagories of world views such as: Naturalism, Theism, and Pantheism.

Now, and Atheist can be either a Pantheist or a Naturalist. This is where the confusion of terms comes into play. Many instantly categorize Atheists as Naturalists. Naturalism is the idea that the Universe has no supernatural forces, and it is all observable. Many Scientists are Naturalistic in practice of science but are theistic or pantheistic in world view. Scientists won't accept any explanation that isn't observable naturally, but they can still believe there are powers outside their observation. Kent Miller is a good example of this. He is a Christian that dosen't believe in Evolution, but accepts it and studies it because for science its the best answer we have for research purposes.


The other category is Pantheism. Pantheism is the belief that God is everything, or the Gods are everything. We are a part of God and he/she/it is a part of us. The idea that the soul is immortal and passes on forever in multiple forms is pantheistic. Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Doaists, Jains are examples of Pantheists. An example would be how Einstein was naturalistic in the sense of science but considered God to be the Universe, its power and its omniscient lines up with Pantheism. The only difference being that Einstein differed in the idea of the Immortal soul.


A Theist can be Anaturalistic, and Apantheistic. A Pantheist can be Atheistic and Anaturalistic. And a Naturalist can be Atheistic and Apantheistic.


The reason I believe many don't understand this is based on the West's limited knowledge and exposure to Pantheistic ideal of Ancient Europe and the Far East. Pantheism is very obscure in modern society of the West and only hints when New agers try and mimic it. Even though they tend to be ignorant of the long traditions and beliefs of the ancient religions of Hinduism, Shamanism, Taoism, and Buddhism.

So none of those religions you named are religions?

Wow, through me for a loop...

 

[jimmy_james]

So none of those religions you named are religions?

Wow, through me for a loop...

I think we misunderstood each other. Atheism isn't a religion or a philosophy, Naturalism, Materialism, and skepticism are.

Theism isn't a religion, but Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are.

Shaminism/paganism isn't a religion but Greek, Viking, and some Native American myths are.

Pantheism isn't a religion but Hinduism, Jainism, Shinto, and Buhhdism are.

 

[Winters Eve]

Atheists. They do not like to consider themselves people of faith or religion. I'd have to say that they are faithful people. In general the type of faith I am talking about is the one a higher being or an after life or something that is higher than ourselves. In this meaning of faith, I most definitely see atheists as faithful and religious people.

How? Well, atheists are either right or wrong, ok? Either they are right and there is no god what so ever, or they are wrong and there is a god or a higher being or something on this line that leads into an after life. So, it must take something for them to view the glass half empty instead of half full, right? That something is faith.

In fact, in this capacity, I almost admire atheists because they have so much faith that they are willingly to accept that there is no after life at all. If they are wrong, they are screwed. If I am wrong, I am not screwed, I end just as the faithful atheists did.

Make sense?

Yes but from an athiests perspective they would say something like well I lived my life the way I wanted to and did everything i wanted to and missed out on nothing were as you chose to follow some elses ideology and lived a lie.
Im not an an athiest by the way.

 

[mcorton]

"so do you have solid proof of your religious faith?"

Hebrews 11:1 says that, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." In a nutshell, faith is believing without proof. We don't have to have faith in things we can see.