God is a Fake

[Abrupt]

Faith...ugh.  That's a dirty word.  You don't rely on "faith" for ANYTHING of importance in your real life...and yet you allow this compartmentalized area for irrationality when it comes to dealing with your mortality.

Oh but you do rely on 'faith' for many things in your real life but you don't recognize them as such.  An example of this is when you drive down the road and trust in the other drivers to respect the lines upon the road (and especially that dividing line down the middle when dealing with two way traffic on a two lane road).  Remove that line and observe the differences in your driving and trust.  I could give many other examples but that is a strong enough one I think for my point.

[queenofnines]

Oh but you do rely on 'faith' for many things in your real life but you don't recognize them as such.  An example of this is when you drive down the road and trust in the other drivers to respect the lines upon the road

There are a lot of things that I know about the other drivers that prevents your example from being faith.  #1 and most important, they are fellow humans who value their lives.  #2, how many cars have I passed in my life?  Tens of thousands.  How many of those cars have ever crossed the line and threatened my life?  Zero (or very few).  With this kind of observable repeat data, I can have reasonable expectations and don't have to rely on "faith".

Let's all remind ourselves of one of the main definitions of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam-Webster).

[Abrupt]

There are a lot of things that I know about the other drivers that prevents your example from being faith.  #1 and most important, they are fellow humans who value their lives.  #2, how many cars have I passed in my life?  Tens of thousands.  How many of those cars have ever crossed the line and threatened my life?  Zero (or very few).  With this kind of observable repeat data, I can have reasonable expectations and don't have to rely on "faith".

Let's all remind ourselves of one of the main definitions of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Merriam-Webster).

Your knowledge of the other drivers is based on experience and self reflection (with regards to concerns for mortality) and your 'faith' in them looking out for their own interests and following rational human behavior.  You also speak of trusting that line based on repeated experience over time which is much the same way religious faith is honed.  I ask you sincerely can you remember your fist experience of how well you regarded this line especially when a large vehicle was plowing your way at a high rate of speed?  Has your regard for this line keeping you and the other drivers on course always been as resolute as it currently is?

I am not particularly fond of that definition of faith (sounds like a liberal atheistic definition of religious faith) and would prefer "firm belief in something without requiring proof".

Again I insist that the faiths are equatable, and since I have both religious faith and faith in the yellow line performing its duties I would say I can draw a reasonable comparison, albeit one could argue it is biased. 

[falcon9]

Actually, my words were "Such a belief constitutes a claim which remains unsubstantiated by anything other than 'faith'.  This means that such claims of faith are tacit admissions of a lack of substantiation and are without basis.  Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?"

It would depend upon what you mean by "a refusal to believe".  That is inclusive of atheism (and any belief (religious or secular) that takes a position contrary to the proposed belief), agnosticism, or any that have never considered the question.  While the later two would qualify for your characterization of 'choice', the first would not -- or at least not in any way more or less than the choice to believe.

First, I didn't use the phrase "a refusal to believe", (although jcribb posted something similar to which I responded).  Secondly, atheism itself is not characterized as a "belief" except in the most general of definitions, (they lack faith-based premises for one thing).  Lastly, everyone chooses unless there is no choice available, (barring a physical inability to choose).  SOme people are therefore choosing to be irrational while others are not.

[Abrupt]

First, I didn't use the phrase "a refusal to believe", (although jcribb posted something similar to which I responded).  Secondly, atheism itself is not characterized as a "belief" except in the most general of definitions, (they lack faith-based premises for one thing).  Lastly, everyone chooses unless there is no choice available, (barring a physical inability to choose).  SOme people are therefore choosing to be irrational while others are not.

I was addressing where you said "Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?"  You don't really choose to be irrational, although your choice may lead to irrationality.  An action may be irrational, but a choice is invariably rational within the scope of the variables the chooser has at hand.  The third party may see the choice as irrational but then that would be an external judgment.

While I would consider true atheism not to be a belief, one will rarely encounter a true atheist and they are unlikely to admit to such (but not out of any concerns for the admission just that it offers no advantage to reveal).  This modern type of quasi-atheism that is periodically about the media is both a belief and a religion of sorts.  It is more readily obvious though as it isn't so much atheism as it is anti spiritual religion.  One reason I have such a difficult time understanding the quasi-atheist is that they choose to take an active and aggressive position against something that the true atheist would prefer everyone else actually believed in.  The true atheist would certainly consider the quasi-atheist to be irrational.

[queenofnines]

*popcorn*

Please define what a "true atheist" is, and why such a person would prefer people to be religious? 

[falcon9]

I was addressing where you said "Characterizing a refusal to believe as merely a 'choice' trivializes the concept of choice itself - unless you're implying that one can choose to be irrational or rational if either choice suits the arguement?"  You don't really choose to be irrational, although your choice may lead to irrationality.  An action may be irrational, but a choice is invariably rational within the scope of the variables the chooser has at hand.  The third party may see the choice as irrational but then that would be an external judgment.

Your premise is inherently faulty in that the "scope of variables the chooser has at hand" can and often do contain an irrational basis.  Using such an irrational basis, ("belief" / "faith", in this instance), to arrive at a choice encompasses making an irrational decision.  In short, if the premise is false, conclusions drawn from it are extremely likely to be false ones.

[falcon9]

*popcorn*

Please define what a "true atheist" is, and why such a person would prefer people to be religious? 

Yep, I'd be interested to read their interpretation of what a "true atheist" is as well.  Enjoy your popcorn, I sure did while reading your replies to some of these folks.
 

[Abrupt]

Your premise is inherently faulty in that the "scope of variables the chooser has at hand" can and often do contain an irrational basis.  Using such an irrational basis, ("belief" / "faith", in this instance), to arrive at a choice encompasses making an irrational decision.  In short, if the premise is false, conclusions drawn from it are extremely likely to be false ones.

You are using external judgments again and that is where the difficulty in your understanding is, notice my deliberate use of the word 'scope'.  There are many times where one mans rational is another's irrational.  Somewhat related is the physics problem regarding "hot water freezing faster than cold".  Everyone is generally familiar with this and such juvenile explanations as "the molecules are farther apart", etc.  The mathematician looks at this problem and applies the "intermediate value theorem" to determine that at some point in time the hot water must reach the exact same temperature as the cold began at and thus readily rationalizes that it cannot cool faster than cooler water.  Observation and scientific studies have proven that hot water can sometimes freeze faster than cooler water and we are left simply with the currently unexplained Mpemba effect.  The scope of the mathematicians rationalization does not include whatever missing variables exist, regardless of how rational they are to the mathematician.

As a point, I must mention that you broke from your previous insistence that you were not calling a belief in faith irrational where it was fairly obvious of your implications.  I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises.  Now I am sure you will challenge this point, but I don't care as I now have my zero.

[queenofnines]

Enjoy your popcorn, I sure did while reading your replies to some of these folks.

My replies were a lot more entertaining in my earlier days.    Nowadays it feels like I'm beating a dead horse.

[luveyourworld]

god is not fake. religion is, but not god. i belive in the god of abraham, issac, and jacob

[jordandog]

Enjoy your popcorn, I sure did while reading your replies to some of these folks.

My replies were a lot more entertaining in my earlier days.    Nowadays it feels like I'm beating a dead horse.

Yes, 'dead horse(s)' is a very apt description. Every once in awhile a new 'rider' will jump on the horse, but since it is dead, the horse goes nowhwere. Or, maybe I should say it just runs in circles like these debates do and have from day one. I don't have the energy most days to even bother anymore, but it seems 1 or 2 of the wicked atheists in our little clique (as we have been called how many times now?) still manage to keep putting OUR camp flag back up the pole and going into the battle yet again.....*sigh*

[queenofnines]

I don't have the energy most days to even bother anymore

Yep!  Humanity is doomed...that's the conclusion I've come to.     We can fly to the moon, but at the same time have the mindset that flying into buildings is okay and that we'll even get rewarded for it in the afterlife.   

[falcon9]

Your premise is inherently faulty in that the "scope of variables the chooser has at hand" can and often do contain an irrational basis.  Using such an irrational basis, ("belief" / "faith", in this instance), to arrive at a choice encompasses making an irrational decision.  In short, if the premise is false, conclusions drawn from it are extremely likely to be false ones.

You are using external judgments again and that is where the difficulty in your understanding is, notice my deliberate use of the word 'scope'.  There are many times where one mans rational is another's irrational.  

Your response is a non sequitur; it merely emphasizes the inherent differences between subjective and objective "scopes".  While it can be said that all internal "scopes" are subjective by definition, (whether rational or irrational), an "external judgement" is either rational or irrational and is subjective as well.  Bottomline being that there is no difficulty understanding your non sequitur and determining that your assertion doesn't support your contention any more than it supports mine.

As a point, I must mention that you broke from your previous insistence that you were not calling a belief in faith irrational where it was fairly obvious of your implications. 

Perhaps however, overtly stating something and interpreting an implication are two different animals.  I will concede that, on the basis of the meanings of "faith" and "belief", they are both irrational stances, (as previously contended).

I must caution you to not try to be too clever and play too many games as there are some that are familiar with such exercises.  Now I am sure you will challenge this point, but I don't care as I now have my zero.

Why is it that those who lack sufficient reasoning skills so often attempt to cover this lack by insisting that reasoning consists of "word games"?  Of course I will challenge your contention since it is a diversionary tactic employed to shift attention away from the contending assertions regarding "faith" and "belief".  QoN posted a definition of "faith" which you merely disagreed with, without substantiating your opposition to it.

[falcon9]

Enjoy your popcorn, I sure did while reading your replies to some of these folks.

My replies were a lot more entertaining in my earlier days.    Nowadays it feels like I'm beating a dead horse.

Probably so ... such 'debates' often go over the same ground because 'believers' soon discover that they have no basis for their beliefs other than baseless "faith".  Any utility in continuing such discussions rests with presenting the reasoning, (not based upon "faith"), and non-reasoned, ('faith-based'), contentions to those who who previously unaware of them.