Brit Hume: Completely Clueless, as usual. - Page 2

Where did I use the term "religious faith"?

I love this argument, I don't disbelieve because I don't have beliefs... Quite a tangled web...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ATHEISM

So You seem to have a variation of the standard definition.

Perhaps better described at Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Still seems to say that there is no God, gods, or spiritual beings of religious significance or otherwise...


Ok, well, you are going a long ways to ensure that nobody could possibly catch you "in a trap", by redefining what people are allowed to believe about a words definition. Yes, people will use the definition that makes their argument strongest. That is human nature. IF they say something using one definition and then switch to another then call them on it. Don't tell them up front what they have to use for you to be satisfied...

No, the principle is so mind bogglingly different it's retarded. Religious faith and faith that your key will start a car are on such opposite ends of the spectrum that to juxtapose them with a straight face and claim they are the same thing would be to eat a pile of shit and say it's chocolate.

Confidence or trust based on prior experiences != Belief without evidence.

All faith is not the same. That's why there's multiple definitions. But because you insist that the all types of faith are the same, I will continue to resist that line of reasoning because it's just plain faulty logic.

Then if you didn't mean it in a religious sense, your post was completely pointless and off topic. This thread is one about religion. Clearly when I used the word faith I was using it in a religious sense based on the context. You coming in and saying we all have faith, but using a different definition, is confusing, completely unrelated, and intentionally misleading.

You might as well have entered a thread about gay bashing and started talking about bundles of sticks.

Thank you for wasting all of our time.

Noah, it is up to the person making the assertion to provide evidence to prove said assertion. The religious are the ones making the assertions about the origins of the universe and what happens after you die. I'm taking the default position and saying "where's the evidence?" Oh? You don't have any? Ya, I'm not going to believe then.

And don't tell me there is evidence. Because if there were incontrovertible evidence, or even convincing evidence, you wouldn't need religious faith to believe.

I don't know about you, but I don't check my car's battery, engine, etc. every time before trying to start it. I don't have any evidence that it will start (other than prior experience - which can actually be applied to religious faith as well).

I have faith that the battery, engine, etc. are all in proper order and that the car will start with out actually knowing for sure that they are.

Faith is more than just "belief without evidence". Faith requires action (ex. turning the key in the ignition). The interesting thing about faith is that you can only receive evidence to justify your faith after acting upon that faith - not before.

Say I do check the battery, the engine, everything I possibly can to make sure the car will start when I turn the key. I can't actually obtain the evidence or proof that the car will start until I turn that key.

Faith is one of those eternal truths that can be applied to both temporal and spiritual things.

I'm sorry if I confused you.

My head hurts. Clearly you refuse to stop confounding the two definitions. It seems we have to agree to disagree to use the English language properly.

Clearly our perceptions of faith and its applications are different. I've tried to explain my point of view as best I can.

You will note I have not attacked you or made any assertions as to your intent or beliefs.

I stand by my statement that atheism requires just as much faith as any religion.

Edited to add:

Wait a minute. The more I think about this the more I think you may be right. If faith (as I understand it) is more than just belief, then perhaps atheism doesn't require faith after all. Just belief.

Or is it a lack of faith in faith itself?

Now my head hurts.

But it's a misleading statement. Even assuming your warped definition of faith is correct, if faith could be assigned mass, I'd say it would take a picogram of faith to be an atheist while it takes several gigagrams to be religious. The two are so many orders of magnitude apart they shouldn't be discussed in the same sentence.

Let's break down what you're saying here:

1) Atheism requires faith.
2) Faith can be quantified.
3) Atheism and religion require the same type of faith.
4) Atheism and religion require the same amounts of the same type of faith.

Ok, now let me respond:

1) Atheism is the default position. Non-belief is what you start with. You are told to believe in something and then you determine whether to accept said beliefs or reject them and remain where you began. Atheism is about saying "Based on what you have presented to me here, I do not find your arguments to be logically compelling or supported by hard evidence. I will thus disregard your conclusions. Have a nice day."

2) Well, I suppose you could measure faith qualitatively, but you also must then delineate the different types of faith as not to confuse the units. Religious faith requires one unit while trust based on past experience requires another. There is no direct conversion factor between the two because the two are entirely unrelated.

3) Atheism is about examining evidence (or the lack thereof) put forth in favor of religion and saying "nope, not convincing." Religion is about accepting certain things to be true even in the absence of said evidence. Atheism is founded upon needing evidence. Religion is founded upon foregoing the need for evidence. Thus, if faith were to be associated with atheism, it would have to be of the trust variety and not of the belief without evidence variety.

4) Since they don't require the same type of faith, they can't require the same amounts of the same type.

Would you say that Atheism is a belief in only certain types of evidence?

Ugh, now we have to define evidence too?

We do?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're now going to proceed and tell me that there's plenty of evidence for religion.

I think you are wrong. He seems to be trying to better understand your position. This is actually turning out to be a very interesting discussion.

I am not going to pick through each statement, but I will say that I can understand this structure you have laid out. It is well thought out and from the perspective of one who needs to experience and have concrete facts laid out in front of them, it would take a bona-fide miracle to get them to believe.

There are those that want to believe in something more than themselves, and I think this is the greater population of the world. They join the various religions for the benefits it brings them and hopefully in the end they find what they truly need.

Then there are others who fit in the description you have laid out above, and are more factually and concretely oriented. If they cannot touch it, see it and experience it in a concrete way then it might be possible, but not likely and not taken seriously. Like the existence of aliens in my estimation. Would that be a fair comparison?

If the second type of person were to witness a true miracle, like a withered limb reforming after a prayer for healing or a dead person returning to life, they would have more evidence, but I still think they would find it difficult to believe that it was God that was responsible. I can say that I have been witness to some very miraculous things in my life and have second-hand knowledge of some larger miracles as well. Not the chain email type of things. So for me, this is more than just faith without facts. But, I can understand where you are coming from. Even seeing what I have seen, I struggle with much of what you talk about as well. We would not be honest people if we did not. I am not looking for the "AH HA Gotcha!!!" moment at this point in my life with regards to religious discussions.

I won't try to convert you or others by force of argument. But I will defend what I believe if I think you are misunderstanding my position or beliefs. You don't have to agree, but I would appreciate some benefit of the doubt that I am being honest with you in my intentions.

Good post, NoahJ. I think you're right - witnessing something miraculous or tangible like that wouldn't necessarily be enough to convince someone to believe in God.

That said, I, too have had some very real, very tangible personal experiences - experiences that I cannot deny in good conscience - that have reaffirmed my own spiritual beliefs. But they would not have happened had I not had faith beforehand and acted on it.

Well, my question is "Why's it gotta be god?" Bring someone from the 6th century and plop them in front of your TV in your living room and he's going to think a miracle is happening and some sort of supernatural thing is causing the images and sounds to appear. I don't feel the pressing need to fill in the gaps with god. I also think that my position is much more difficult as well because not having answers to life's important questions can sometimes keep me up at night and scare me shitless. But just because I feel scared or alone or insignificant sometimes doesn't mean I should chuck reason out the window and attribute things I don't understand to god.

Something seemingly miraculous happened? Great. Let's figure out how and why it happened. Just because something cannot be explained with our current understanding doesn't mean that it automatically becomes evidence for god. Your miracles are quite possibly (and more likely) that 6th century guy's TV.

Almost exactly what I thought your response would be.

Although the middle part was a bit unexpected. But honest, thank you. I can really respect that.

I guess if you were there to see it, you could draw your own conclusions based on the first-hand experience. Nothing I can say right now would convince you. We both know that. However, just because something can be explained also does not preclude the existence of God either.

Just because it doesn't preclude god doesn't mean it necessarily has to support god either. I actually respect people more when they actually admit that their beliefs in their gods are irrational. Of course I think it's silly to have those irrational beliefs but at least they're honest about it and aren't trying to sell me on it scientifically with convoluted and contradictory "proofs".

What I don't understand is why religious people put a higher standard of evidence on every other topic than what could arguably be the topic with the most gravity. If I used the same religious arguments you use to support <insert liberal hippy cause you disagree with>, you'd rip me and my argument ten new assholes.

Faith is not wanting to believe what is true as Nietzsche said.

Or put another way, if you know the world is round you don't need faith it is round. Faith fills the vacuum in a head when rationality has left it.

Back OT: I think the original post was pretty spot on....Buddhists are not constrained by Xian morality btw - only Xians are - so from that point of view, Woods may well have acted morally.

More Xian hypocrisy here:

Usual Stuff....

Just the normal; affairs, lying, embezzlement and homophobia....nothing much new....

We are saying the same thing. We have found agreement.


Ok.


Well, that would depend on the topic and the arguments. How you argued it. The evidence provided based on the evidence that is available, and more. The standard you have just presented is actually very subjective though with no examples of "the same religious arguments you use". I try to stay consistant in my arguments, however I do know that the level of proof that can be given for a physical, concrete thing is different than for a more ethereal concept. Especially for people that need concrete proofs they can observe, feel, taste, experience.

I might rip your argument up... But I try not to destroy someone when I argue with them, it kind of makes further conversations more difficult in the future. I am not always successful, but I am working on it.

That's why true atheists should give agnosticism a try.

I don't have a problem with reading comprehension, I have a problem with author attribution.

If you have proof the "Lord" was the author of these verses I'd like to see evidence of that. From where I stand, all religions are human made and as such are rife with inconsistencies, especially as they have been recast to maintain a modicum of relevancy to generation after generation, translation after translation. People who have made it their life's work to study biblical matters are quite aware of these inconsistencies and are hesitant to blindly follow modern interpretations. These texts are a reflection of ancient views of the world that no longer apply, save for the fact that people remain fearful of death and need some kind of framework of reason (or mysticism) for their existence. These stories allow people to live their lives without having to think too much about what they do or disagree with their sainted leaders, when they can simply attribute important decisions or their station in life to "God's will", "the Lord's plan" or proof that "Jesus loves" them.

Well, I don't believe that his wife and family, nor many of his sponsors, agree with you. And for Tiger, that is what matters in his world. Pretending that someone is trying to constrain him to Christian morality is not supported by the OP. But you can see it how you want I guess. The suggestion was made that he consider Christianity for the forgiveness that would be offered.

I was talking to a co-worker here and his claim is that Buddhism would be fine with what he did as morality is what is moral for you in that belief system. So he could feel self justified in his current faith. If this is the case then Tiger himself may not care one way or another, but society appears to be at odds with his self set morality. My co-worker may be right or not though...

And your post about infidelity, etc, changes what about the topic? It only further proves what I put in my initial responses...

Forgiveness for what? That's my point - it is seen purely through the lens of Xianity. In his view he may not need forgiveness.


What is society?

It is made up of many sections...problems arise when trying to impose...err...I mean extrapolate.. the views of one section onto all.


Just widening the canvas...

Seems the sort of Xians who love to judge others and preach about the evils of other's behaviour are uniquely prone to it themselves. This may well be unique to Xianity, I think it is relevant....for him who has ears to hear so to say,,,

I guess his wife's view matters not...


Ok.


Well, as I said, your post only backs up my position posted earlier. For him who has eyes, let him read... (To take an out of context quote and alter it even further)

They matter in terms of the relationship between two people. They do not matter 'spiritually' (if you excuse the phrase) in terms of a theological position if the 'offender' does not recognize that position.

It would be kind of like if you expected an atheist to feel the need for forgiveness for blaspheming.


And yet....

When the New York Times, of all places, offers more reasonable discourse on the subject than most in this thread, it's a clear sign that the end of the world is truly nigh.

God, I wish it was...

Unfortunately the fundies have lied to us about that too...b'stards..

Good of you to feel outrage for him. I am sure he appreciates it.


Not exactly. Blaspheming has no physical manifestation associated unless it was, say, murder in the name of and by command of some deity or belief that was not part of that actual system of belief. Then not only would the blasphemy be a problem but you have also fallen foul of the law and Thou Shalt not Kill. But so long as he does not recognize that position it is all good right? How far does your position actually go with your line of reasoning? Was that too far?

Cheer up, No man knows the hour or the day...

You could yet get your wish, or not....

I want to see a long-form birth certificate and a notarized statement accompanying a video of said individual.

Oh goody. Here we go again.

Anti-Christian sentiment noted.

You must go searching for reasons to be angry at Christians? I watch the headlines every day and this never came up.

This quote I can agree was incendiary. And is understandable why people would be upset hearing it.

Not defending the guy or making claims as to his religious status, but look back at OT prophets that predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel. You think the people of the day believed that God actually said that through them? Or do you believe that they called them the equivalent of hate mongers and bigots? A message of destruction does not a non-christian make. However, you will know them by their fruits, and what has been the fruit of Pat? That has more to do with his relevance in my opinion that what most everyone sees as upsetting rhetoric. (Once again, I make no claims as to his actual relevance or Christianity. I don't watch the 700 Club, nor the network it is on in general so i cannot tell you what I think of his Christian claims.)