'True lies of new Atheism'.

Now you're catching on. Faith is irrational, or more precisely non-rational, as no cognitive processes of any sort are involved in it.

 

The words can be confusing here. Let me make a distinction that Jesus failed to make.

Belief is different from knowing. If you know, there is no doubt. If you believe, you have at least some doubt. Every statement in the form "I believe X" includes the silent suffix "but I could be wrong."

This is not true of knowing. If you know, you do not doubt, and hence you do not believe. If you doubt, you do not know, you "merely" believe. So a more precise way of describing faith is as a form of knowing. It's a very peculiar form of knowing that admits no basis for knowing. With faith, you just plain know, and nothing intervenes in this pure sense of knowing. I think this is what revelation is meant to describe. Faith sourced through revelation is pure knowing in the sense that it was not arrived at by any kind of process.

But it is precisely this to which I object. Faith is "putting the cart before the horse." By faith, if I think something is true, whether it is or not, it is true ipso facto solely because I think it.

 

Irrational or 'non rational' is actually a complimentary condition.... Why? Because when someone is labeled as 'irrational' it implies that the person is one who does not have a need to lean upon 'excuses' or the fabrication of 'rationalizations'.

As for your unverifiable statement emphasized in red above..... Show me anyone who, as a normal condition, utilizes "no cognitive processes" when they are engaged in any particular activity. You can't, simply because of the conditions laid out in the definition of 'cognition' and that term along with its definitions standing on its own merits.

"cognition

the process of knowing in the broadest sense, including perception, memory, and judgment
the result of such a process; perception, conception, etc."


"cognitive

Of, characterized by, involving, or relating to cognition."

 

Is there a written set of laws somewhere that contains such a pragmatic absolute that you have stated (red text above)?

When you go to sit down on a chair, do you perform various testings to assure you that the chair will support your weight? No? Then you, performing that act is a conditioned act of 'faith'. 'Faith' in the products integrity and having no notifications from outside sources that the chair might be defective. If someone truly 'knows' all there is to KNOW about all things (temporal), then there would never be any accidents that happen as the result of defective products. So, when I say "I know this chair will support my weight, there is the silent condition that I might be wrong."

 

LOL I'd be careful with suggesting a lack of normality in this context, but yeah, in essence you're right; belief for no reason can indeed be a basis for discussing intellectual capabilities.

 

My statement is conditioned upon the basis of 'normal thinking', and as such only and at the most begs the question "what is 'normal?'". "Normal" does not necessarily compel one to be an 'intellectual' giant, thus eliminating 'intellectualism' as a condition or prerequisite of 'normal thinking'.

""belief for no reason" would be more akin to the condition of someone who is not capable of 'normal thinking'."

 

Nonsense. People constantly do both simultaneously, because they lack faith. That's why the majority of people in the Milgram experiment threw the final switch.

 

That's quite a positive view of the word.
Irrational means a person does things for no logical reason. I actually don't think the description fits most theists, as their assumptions set the framework by which their actions are to be judged.

If a theist does something in the name of God that hurts others, it is not irrational. They are just bad rational actors, the same way a mining company that goes bankrupt to avoid paying for clean-up is.
If you kill for God because you assume it to be the way to gain His favor and believe that is the most important thing, you have acted rationally. It's still bad and has bad effects upon others (who would be rational to oppose you).

An irrational person is more like the Joker in The Dark Knight.

 

You can not know and doubt at the same time. You may shift quickly in and out of feeling certain and doubting, but it's not possible to know and doubt at exactly the same time.

 

If it were written somewhere would you be convinced? No. So stop with the foolish questions.

Not really. I have plenty of experience with sitting in chairs and very little experience of them falling apart under me. I'm operating under a statistical assumption of near certain safety. A near statistical certainty is not faith. Also, I am aware that any chair I sit in could fall apart under me. So when I sit without checking, I BELIEVE the chair is safe, but I do not KNOW it is.

 

The 'foolish question' caused you to come forward with a speck of truth. Your claim which the question is addressing is nothing more than a personal opinion and one that is highly questionable at best.

If your actions then are not based on certainties, then it could be said that your actions are based on an equal amount of ignorance of that/those particular subject matters. You "BELIEVE" in an unknown? Now that is truly amazing. That is the same thing as believing in your 'imagination'. You say to yourself... "I believe this chair is safe, therefore I will sit in this chair"... At the same time, there is that little stigma of doubt as to whether or not that chair will in fact support your weight... thus your act of sitting on chair which holds a degree in uncertainty, would be the same as you having 'faith' in that chair. Just shows that you do in FACT have a 'belief system'.

 

Yes you can. To know is to have knowledge, and you have that whether you doubt it or not, just as I have a Bible whether I choose to open it or not. If doubt could annihilate knowledge it would do the same for responsibility; and since it clearly cannot effect the latter, neither can it effect the former.

 

Well I fear you are weasel wording this, creating another 'straw man statement'. What is a fire man statement? it’s a tactic of yours (other members here use classical strawmen and trolling tactics) where you intentionally vaguely word a statement with built in traps trolling for a bite. I wanted you to know I had your number before I commented. Allow me to tell you that I use you and your own tactics to help guests and others by posting information raised by your straw man, corrrecting false hoods spread by atheists etc etc ie spreading the good news via double crossing your 'straw man statement.'

Anyway, did you read the link I provided? No, or at least it seems you didn‘t. Yours is not the opinion of anyone learned in theology etc that I know of. Can you produce a source for that claim? Why do you think the philosophers of old and contemporary philosophers debated God to no end challenging each other with logical arguments and other evidences while constantly working on proof and evidence for the existence of God? If pure faith was all that was needed why all that debate etc?

There is no such thing as 100% faith, using only faith. The bible is evidence for faith, revelation of nature is evidence for faith. I could go on but you get the picture eh?

Of course we all like evdiences or at least many of us do, so I wont disagree with you about that. However, we as christians witness to non beleivers and show evidence for the existence of God to bring them to the truth and the light and out of the darkness. That is how I was converted from atheism to Christianity.

RevA

 

100% ‘knowing’ is a fallacy. No one knows anything with an accuracy/probability of 100%. So we need evidence and faith. Jesus hinted if we had far less than 100% faith (which is impossible) nearly anything would be possible. So he is suggesting all of us have very little faith, and I agree. However if it were somehow possible we would not need evidence if we had 100% faith .

Reva

 

It is utterly awesome how little you know about 'faith', 'evidence', and the 'Bible' and 'religiosity'.

"Isa 7:10 ¶ Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
Isa 7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
Isa 7:12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
Isa 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. "

You see, even God recognized that people needed 'a sign' evidence of His power and authority.

See here for more scriptures relating to the need of evidence:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=a+sign&t=KJV

 

I know with 100% accuracy that it's wrong to sodomize a child. Don't you?

How can faith be anything BUT 100%?

 

I notice you have placed a distinction that is based on an age status. Does this age status distinction cause the act of sodomy to no longer be "wrong" after a certain age? That would be a set of double standards... How can a particular active conduct (sodomy) be wrong (speaking of morality) in this circumstance and the same active conduct (sodomy) not wrong (speaking of morality) in another circumstance? Are moralities whimsical,,, able to change with the winds of time (especially in a short duration of time)? Likewise is it (morally speaking) wrong to kill innocent children even in an act of so-called war?

http://childrendeads.blogspot.com/2011/05/children-killed-in-middle-east.html
Are the above depictions any better (more right) than sodomy?

Here is more: Sodomy condoned by US Government:
http://www.bloggerheads.com/abu_ghraib/

Scroll down to the second photo and read the first two captions (paragraphs) below the photo.

 

ra·tion·al   [rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Show IPA
adjective
1.agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2.having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3.being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4.endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5.of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.

You are telling me that being rational is a bad thing, so I'm just going to stop talking to you because It's pointless to talk to someone that is irrational.

 

6th grade? Why 6th? why not 4th or 1st?

I like you you specify that it is my words you are calling empty headed instead of me. That's a good way to try to avoid punishment for being insulting.

But because of the lack of evidence for divine origin of the book you are quoting, there was never a valid point or counterpoint made.

I'm in the religion section talking about religion. You might have a point if this was the "I love religion" section. It's not.

I am not sniveling, I am just saying things you don't like because it makes you question your god.

There is not any evidence for your faith. That is why it is called faith.

I admire good people, in spite of their faith.

I don't love you and it is silly for you to tell me that you love me. There is no such thing as a soul and your quoted scripture means diddly squat to me.

 

Oh, so the New Testament does not ACCURATELY describe the life and teaching of one Jesus Christ? If you accept that he is the Son of God, then his life IS divinely inspired.

Or are you going to advocate the trite of the Jesus Myth? A known academic lie?

 

There is no evidence to suggest that Jesus was the son of god.

The people that wrote about Jesus in the NT did so almost 70 years after his death.

If you would read more than 1 book, you would already know that.

There was a fella named Jesus that existed and was crucified because he called himself a king.

The whole "son of god" story is completely unbelievable to the rational mind.

 

I did not believe that is what I said. There is no evidence upon which to deny it either BTW.

It is a decision you make regarding the life and teachings of the old JC. And if you think that what he says is correct, and even atheists don't doubt his teachings, then you have to consider what he claims is the source.

Given that science itself cannot confirm or deny the source ...

Its an act of faith.

Your faith, BTW, says its all BS - and for that, we have the actual teachings of JC which stand is stark and revealing contrast to that ascertion.

Disagreement is one thing, disrepsect and certainty that others are wrong? Well, I am certain you are wrong, but I am careful to acknowledge that you have a right to choose your own faith and, intellectually, I understand that the facts being what they are - I have to accept your warped anti-God diatribes as at least intellectually valid.

 

I know it isn't what you said. You had presented a straw man argument in hopes that I would agree with it. I clarified.

Using that logic there is no reason to deny all the other gods, but you do anyway.

just to clarify that one a bit, you are referring to the teachings of Jesus christ... as reported to other people... 70 years after his death... because even though jesus could read (Luke 4:16-20) and write (John 7:14 -17), he never recorded anything about Christianity. It's also been translated hundreds if not thousands of times over the years. Religious scholars can't agree to the meanings of scriptures from the same version, and there are many versions.

If you have a complete lack of any physical evidence after thoroughly searching for many years, then I would have to say the evidence leads me to believe that the story isn't true.

Hardly. I've explained this one until I'm blue in the face. It doesn't take faith to not believe in something.

My respect is earned, not given. You started out at neutral like everyone else and then went downhill from there. I'm not trying to change your mind about anything. I am just pointing out the logical fallacy that people must believe in order to have religious faith.

You think it is disrespectful for me to state my opinion on the matter. I disagree.

 

Oh, now its a trap? Why is it everything that disagrees with an atheist is a strawman?

The question was about the divine origin of the Bible, and, as Jesus claims divine origin, how is it not divine in origin if he is speaking the truth?

It neither a strawman nor trap. All you did was dodge, not because its a strawman, but because you are wrong.

Yep, because atheists say so. Why, using my brain and an analytical process, I am totally unable to figure why logically some things are considered mythology and some things are considered valid religion.

It probably has something to do with ACTUAL examination of evidence leading to what we talked about above .... a lack of conclusive evidence.

So when the evidence of God is inconclusive, we just through up our hands and abandon logic .... while being convinced that there is no God because our meager brains cannot engage a concept like God?

Sound like a problem for atheists - not theists?

Is that when the earliest Christian writing appear?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

According to that, they begin popping into the record almost immediately. I am sure though, you have actually been scrounging the historica record to arrive at your conclusion on dating, eh?

And if people write what he said? Well, dictation is not allowed or valid in the logical world of atheism? BS.

Yep, no doubt ...

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

A simple google search turns up many more. Claiming you have looked ... when there is so much readily available, well, like you say, that tends to indicate that the claim is simply not true.

When the evidence if inconclusive about something existing? Yes, it does.

IYO it does not, but opinions are often not born of the rules of logic.

How is it a fallacy?

The evidence, physical evidence is inconclusive. We believe anyway - so do you.

And then there is relationships in general. Do you have actual physical proof that you love your wife? Prove it scientifically.

So, a process that is impossible with your wife, but obviously true, well, in a love and compassion centered relationship with God .... we apparently need science? Like your wife? Children? You have to prove that you love them be reading them books on evolution? Or by telling them that you love them, according to Dawkins, because there genes are close to yours?

We see the dysfunction in the approach yet?

I don't know, you tell me. What do atheists do whenever the hear someone state 'God'? Your opinion on God is one thing.

The fact that your opinion is that everyone but atheists are convincingly wrong? That is simply untrue. It is, as teh thread title states, just a lie of atheism.

Atheism is just another faith choice. But the only faith choice out there that explicitly rejects all others. It is intolerance incarnate.

 

Yes, I get the picture, and it is still one of circular reasoning. That the human mind must seek reaffirmation of belief without reason, precisely because there is no reason, and therefore allows the belief to become evidence of itself does not mean that there is actual evidence concerning the belief. It only means that there's a method eligible for the title of self-reaffirmation.