If you lost your faith.. do you think you would become depressed?

[Nomarga]

Nomarga, thank you very much for saying that your post was not meant to be an insult, that is very courtious of you. My answer to your post is also not meant to be an insult, but these kinds of studies do shine a nice light on why alot of atheists are the way they are.Its almost like the words infinite regression of arguing is a part of their life.
God bless

The red herrings are out in force now, so this is where I will get off the bus.

 

[Amber.ly]

I've always thought that to be an atheist, your entire belief system requires faith also. You must believe that what science tells you today is true for tomorrow. You hold that there is no eternal or supernatural being in the universe when no proof of this exists. In a hundred years, everything that is proven in science will be radically different and quite possibly, have disproved all the "truth" that science holds to today.

Faith in the changeable is the same as faith in the unproven. Atheism is a belief system. Belief requires faith. In something, in anything. The difference between followers of Christ and atheists is where we place our faith.

 

[MehGuy]

Don't feel like you need to apologize for seeing things the way that you do. I enjoy the discussion, and those aren't bad questions. I've asked myself similar questions before, and I still do to an extent. Although I've been down these paths before, I try to keep the doors of inquiry open.

My replies weren't meant to criticize you. They're essentially my own arguments with myself. Even when I tried to be an atheist, it didn't ring true for me. Although I understand atheism as a legitimate philosophical position, and I don't disrespect people for thinking that way, I can't help but arrive at a different conclusion. If I lost my faith in Christ, I would still be a theist. More of a panentheist than somebody who believes in a Zeus type character, but a theist nonetheless.

Well I just wanted to be careful with what I said regarding the origins of the universe. I don't see any reason to believe it was Supernatural, and definitively wouldn't be using it to fill any gaps but I can't say anything with 100% certainty. I doubt it was started be a conscious creator, but I didn't want to bore you with my intuition that I really couldn't say much with, other than the suggestions I gave up there being other possibilities.

Maybe that's the wrong way to go as an Atheist but eh...

Oh well, least it was a nice discussion and no one got hurt lol.

 

[Christian-Catholic]

If its objective, then it is fact.

But alas, its still subjective because it requires faith. You do not KNOW that the Bible contains the objective moral code that God wants us to live by. You have FAITH that it does, and you have FAITH that what it says in there is from God and not the man who wrote it all.

I mean, I understand your position here and why you are reaching this conclusion. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God as a fact, then there's no doubt that you must also believe the moral code contained in it is as well. But I'm just trying to point out that its still a belief. You believe its true and have faith that its true. That doesn't make it factually true.

I could believe that there are purple unicorns in space that ate pieces of the moon, and thats why craters exist. That doesn't make it true

Thats the difference between faith and knowledge.

To me it cant be 100% proven by science, but to compare it to purple unicorns shows that your not understanding my argument in depth.
Again your positing irrational absolutes. Im saying that there is enough evidence for me to believe . Without faith there can be no love and if we had 100% proof we would be Gods robots.not creatures that he created for the purpose of just serving him. Love is a choice, therefore there needs to be some faith. Most atheists live this way but when it comes to God they deny it.

 

[MehGuy]

I've always thought that to be an atheist, your entire belief system requires faith also. You must believe that what science tells you today is true for tomorrow. You hold that there is no eternal or supernatural being in the universe when no proof of this exists. In a hundred years, everything that is proven in science will be radically different and quite possibly, have disproved all the "truth" that science holds to today.

Faith in the changeable is the same as faith in the unproven. Atheism is a belief system. Belief requires faith. In something, in anything. The difference between followers of Christ and atheists is where we place our faith.

Yeah well we just try to see things the best way we can, which is with science. Many of us don't believe in a God because we see no compelling evidence. What else should a human do in this circumstance? Keep and open mind, test things to death, always be open to science taking a new course.

Of course this is my opinion.

 

[Nomarga]

I've always thought that to be an atheist, your entire belief system requires faith also. You must believe that what science tells you today is true for tomorrow. You hold that there is no eternal or supernatural being in the universe when no proof of this exists. In a hundred years, everything that is proven in science will be radically different and quite possibly, have disproved all the "truth" that science holds to today.

Faith in the changeable is the same as faith in the unproven. Atheism is a belief system. Belief requires faith. In something, in anything. The difference between followers of Christ and atheists is where we place our faith.

Atheism, in the strictest sense of the word, is simply the rejection of the theistic arguments. It doesn't give any insight into anything else (belief in the scientific method, eating babies, etc.).

Similarly, you telling me you're a theist only tells me that you believe in an interactive deity, nothing else.

 

[Christian-Catholic]

The red herrings are out in force now, so this is where I will get off the bus.

Im sorry you feel like its a red herring, but it does fit the cycle that I am seeing here
I can understand why it would make you uncomfortable enough to want to leave this subject, but studies tend to be pretty indepth. Sounds alot like the arguments being made here doesnt it
God bless

 

[Amber.ly]

Yeah well we just try to believe things the best way we can, which is with science. Many of us don't believe in a God because we see no compelling evidence. What else should a human do in this circumstance? Keep and open mind, test things to death, always be open to being wrong.

So you want to have an open mind but reject the idea of an omnipresent being? You test things to death for "proof" but are willing for all of them to be proven wrong in 10 years?

My only point is that you have faith. We just disagree as to where that faith will take you.

Atheism, in the strictest sense of the word, is simply the rejection of the theistic arguments. It doesn't give any insight into anything else (belief in the scientific method, eating babies, etc.).

Similarly, you telling me you're a theist only tells me that you believe in an interactive deity, nothing else.

Absolutely, I wasn't trying to say that every single atheist jumps on the science bandwagon. But a majority do. And no matter what, no matter the belief in something, or a belief about something- it all calls for faith. Our world, our scope of knowledge is constantly changing. New theories, new facts, new experiences changes us and our beliefs. Faith is the glue holding together any belief. And lets admit it- all of us have a belief that can't be proven in any conclusive way.

I'll sum up my entire point- atheism requires faith.

 

[MehGuy]

So you want to have an open mind but reject the idea of an omnipresent being? You test things to death for "proof" but are willing for all of them to be proven wrong in 10 years?

My only point is that you have faith. We just disagree as to where that faith will take you.



Absolutely, I wasn't trying to say that every single atheist jumps on the science bandwagon. But a majority do. And no matter what, no matter the belief in something, or a belief about something- it all calls for faith. Our world, our scope of knowledge is constantly changing. New theories, new facts, new experiences changes us and our beliefs. Faith is the glue holding together any belief. And lets admit it- all of us have a belief that can't be proven in any conclusive way.

I'll sum up my entire point- atheism requires faith.

I don't flat out reject an omnipresent being, but until I see some real evidence of one I don't have any reason to believe in one. I've already made a few posts where I've expressed that I cannot say one doesn't exist with 100% certainty.

Of course I'd have to say the same thing with various other things like unicorns or a flying hamburger creating the universe.

Yeah I'm willing to have everything be proved wrong in 10 years, if I was a scientist lol, I love sorrow anyways so eh. You wouldn't? If a person is willing to acknowledge that he could very well be disproven someday, I wouldn't really call it faith. Just looking at reality with the best of their abilities. And when Scientists are unwilling to give them up, others will scorn them for it, and rightly so.

So a person is right for rejecting God with the information he has, but not right in claiming to know with 100% certainty. If you can think of a better position to take, be my guest..



Of course all my posts in this wonderful thread are in my opinion. Lol.

 

[MehGuy]

The end point that I am trying to make is that the supposition that God doesn't exist cannot compute for us.

We would rather not exist and for God to exist than any kind of self-serving fantasy that God doesn't exist.

Because we live for Him...all we do is for HIM...we wish we could do more for HIM. I would rather every man be proved a liar than God to ever be suspected to lie.

I do not deserve heaven...even though it is a goal for some. I deserve the other place most assuredly. Even if I don't get to go to Heaven...I cannot stop on the course and lifestyle that I currently have for I believe that it is for the ultimate good.

But that is just it...God has promised and has never fallen short on a promise yet. For some odd reason He is going and has seen fit to allow me a pass into Heaven.

and as far as conservative goes...LOL...I am a liberal Christian. A lot more liberal than Catholics or Lutherans or Charismatic faiths.

Yeah... all I can say is the mind is more flexible than you think IMO.

 

[GQ Chris]

I used to think I could "lose" my Salvation, but I just don't think its possible for me anymore.

I could rebel, but I would just get disciplined and be miserable the rest of my time on Earth until I am dragged kicking and screaming into Heaven, only to find out that I could've avoided all that unnecessary misery.

 

[Nomarga]

Absolutely, I wasn't trying to say that every single atheist jumps on the science bandwagon. But a majority do. And no matter what, no matter the belief in something, or a belief about something- it all calls for faith. Our world, our scope of knowledge is constantly changing. New theories, new facts, new experiences changes us and our beliefs. Faith is the glue holding together any belief. And lets admit it- all of us have a belief that can't be proven in any conclusive way.

I'll sum up my entire point- atheism requires faith.

But atheism, in and of itself, doesn't require any faith. It is simply a rejection of the current arguments for a theistic deity.

Science, however, does hold a few basic premises to be true, such as:

- The universe exists
- Events in the universe take place in consistent, uniform patterns (what happens in one place happens throughout the universe)
- These patterns can be discovered via physical means (I.E. intellect, sensory organs and technology that extends such senses)

If these things classify science as a faith-based entity in one's mind, so be it, but I maintain that the levels of faith exhibited by the scientist and the believer are very different.

Science "faith" works (as in produces tangible results... space travel, vaccines, the internet, etc.), religious "faith" does not. <--- I'm not quite sure on the wording of that sentence, but I'll let it stand to see how it plays out.

Note: I'm going to force myself not to come to the forums for a while, so I can get caught up on my schoolwork and not fail a few upcoming tests. Don't worry...

 

[Amber.ly]

But atheism, in and of itself, doesn't require any faith. It is simply a rejection of the current arguments for a theistic deity.

I feel like we are going in circles. Atheism rejects the belief of any eternal or omnipresent being existing, yes? Which has yet to be proven in a quantifiable or any accurate way. You have faith there is no such being because faith is believing in something not proven (or physical I guess?), yes?

Science "faith" works (as in produces tangible results... space travel, vaccines, the internet, etc.), religious "faith" does not. <--- I'm not quite sure on the wording of that sentence, but I'll let it stand to see how it plays out.

You mean physical existence? This sentence lost me as to where you are going with it.

 

[Isambard]

I feel like we are going in circles. Atheism rejects the belief of any eternal or omnipresent being existing, yes? Which has yet to be proven in a quantifiable or any accurate way. You have faith there is no such being because faith is believing in something not proven (or physical I guess?), yes?

No. Atheism is a lack of belief in deities.

 

[K9_Trainer]

I feel like we are going in circles. Atheism rejects the belief of any eternal or omnipresent being existing, yes? Which has yet to be proven in a quantifiable or any accurate way. You have faith there is no such being because faith is believing in something not proven (or physical I guess?), yes?



You mean physical existence? This sentence lost me as to where you are going with it.

Lack of belief in something is not the same as having faith that something doesn't exist or isn't true.

If I lack belief in something, then I just downright don't believe it's true. I don't have faith that its not true, that doesn't make much sense in that context.

 

[Drax]

But its still quite subjective and emotionally based. There's been men who killed many people because "God told them to".

I'm afraid I can't really go much further on this topic without breaking the rules though

Christian morality is "subjective and emotionally based?" It's actually based upon some well-studied and understood documents and traditions. And killing people because "God told them to" is horrid, & in no way has basis in Christian objective morality. Such actions are due purely to sin. Surely you know this. I fear we're talking past each other.

 

[Drax]

Yet there are some 30,000+ interpretations of God's Will. Seems like Donna's point stands.

So Christians' Modernist and Postmodernist confusion proves that point? Hardly.

 

[MehGuy]

I feel like we are going in circles. Atheism rejects the belief of any eternal or omnipresent being existing, yes? Which has yet to be proven in a quantifiable or any accurate way. You have faith there is no such being because faith is believing in something not proven (or physical I guess?), yes?



You mean physical existence? This sentence lost me as to where you are going with it.

Weak Atheists reject the notion of a God/Goddess/whatever because so far there hasn't been any compelling evidence.

The only type of Atheists I can think of having to have faith is the ones who propose with 100% certainty there is no God, and I've personally never met one of them.

So until someone gives us some good evidence we'll stay right where we are.

 

[Drax]

What would qualify as enough evidence? How much evidence would be required? Not baiting, really asking out of curiosity.

 

[MehGuy]

Christian morality is "subjective and emotionally based?" It's actually based upon some well-studied and understood documents and traditions. And killing people because "God told them to" is horrid, & in no way has basis in Christian objective morality. Such actions are due purely to sin. Surely you know this. I fear we're talking past each other.

I think she is saying that the Bible is so vague that even the Christian can't be totally sure if they are interpreting the list of objective laws to be correct anyways, so they fall in a similar position as Nihilists. Though I guess some Moral codes are more clear than others.