"Blind faith" versus "choosing to believe"

[Ana the Ist]

OK fair enough. But the writer is using that example for the sort of marketing research I am saying can be unreliable. All I am saying is yes surveys and studies can be misleading. But it all depends on the type of research they do and who does it. I would have more confidence in scientific research done by experts in their fields. The other thing is who is backing the research. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the studies that show things like chocolate and things like sugars being good for you were backed by chocolate and confectionery companies as well.

You wouldn't be surprised if the study that showed chocolate was good for your health was funded by a chocolate/candy company?

Steve, every time you respond to Arch regarding the article he cited you prove you haven't read it. You proved you didn't read it when you said it was written by Roy Morgan...and you just proved you didn't read it again when you made the above statement.

This is why no one regards the articles you cite worthy of consideration. You don't read them. You just post them because you read the title and think it supports your position.

 

[JGG]

Rock matured just like human. It keep changing according to the environment and it will eventually die.

So a rock feeds, respires, grows, reproduces, and then dies?

Material (gas, for example) leaks out of the rock. That is breathing out.

How does it breathe in?

I am a rock scientist. Rock is not alive (why not?). But I can try to make it fit the current definition of life. So, by the definition of life as you know it, a rock should be alive.

Not by any definition I know. What definition are you using?

 

[Joshua260]

Blind Faith in the bibles writings is based on the misinterpretation of evidence.

If one claims the biblical flood never happened, that would be wrong. There's a mass of evidence a flood happened in the region of the Black Sea. It's the people of the time telling a story and not knowing it only happened in the parts of the land they knew and put it down to god being angry. Same with Sodom and Gomorrah, Plagues of Egypt, and every time the Jews were defeated.

If one insists on following that line, one must assume the holocaust and numerous pogroms was due to god being angry again with the Jews. Which we now know was born out of hatred and Jews refusing to mix with fellow countrymen. Because of their blind faith.

Thanks. That in no way actually answers the OP.

 

[Joshua260]

If the number of atheists who do this is zero, what's the point of the discussion?

I have personally heard atheists tell me this, so you are simply incorrect.
As to the point, the point of the OP is not whether they do or not, but should they or should they not.

 

[Joshua260]

Actually, if you recall, I stated that no atheist has ever claimed that blind faith is faith simply with lack of evidence (although a Christian did just claim that, maybe that's why you're so confused) and likewise has claimed that belief is only ever based on evidence. No atheist has ever told you that.

I'm amazed at the gall you have in telling me that no atheists has ever told me those things. I'm telling you the truth from personal experience. Atheists have told me that there's not a shred of evidence for the Christian faith, and then those same atheists have claimed that people only come to believe through evidence.

If you further recall, I was the one who pointed out that belief is based on influence, not evidence.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that people do not come to believe something based on evidence? I got to admit...I've never heard that one.

 

[quatona]

I have personally heard atheists tell me this, so you are simply incorrect.

So why didn´t you talk to them about it?
And you can´t find a single instance here where an atheist said it?

As to the point, the point of the OP is not whether they do or not, but should they or should they not.

Nobody, atheists or theists, should use a poor argument, particularly not if someone else has created it for a strawman.

 

[Joshua260]

Can you post a link to these documents, written at the time of the resurrection by the witnesses please.

That's the problem with blind faith. We have so much evidence the bible is wrong. Like juvenissun once confronted with evidence and asked for evidence to reply. You back away.

The point of the OP is that an atheist cannot rationally claim that we Christians have a blind faith (as in having zero evidence) and at the same time claim that the only way people come to believe is through evidence. The two claims are contradictory. Whether or not there is evidence (subjective, objective, real, or imaginary) is a different question.
Sprechen sie English?

 

[Joshua260]

So do you accept the personal religious testimony of Muslims around the world, or do you admit that personal religious testimony really isn't good evidence for deciding which religion to follow?

off topic.

 

[Joshua260]

So any religion which has had followers die for it is true?



Any religion which has converts is true?



So if the writings of a religion say it is true, then it must be true?

If you were actually consistent with these weak standards of evidence you'd have to accept pretty much every religion out there. But you obviously don't since you reject similar claims from lots of other religions. The weird thing is why you'd think that anyone else would accept them for yours.

off topic.

 

[Joshua260]

What I said is that your claim that atheists do this is wrong. As you agree that no atheist has made such statements, perhaps the question should be if it is contradictory when Christians ask it, as you're the only one making such claims.

No I did not agree that atheists never say these things. I have personally heard atheists make these claims.
But pay attention...the point is not whether they do or not, the question is whether it is contradictory or not if they do.
Since you are adamant that no atheist has ever said such a thing implies that you believe it would contradictory. So thanks again for your response.

 

[bhsmte]

off topic.

You have brought up religious testimony yourself.

 

[Joshua260]

So why didn´t you talk to them about it?

Some I heard on the radio, others were from personal conversations and it did not occur to me at the time that they had actually contradicted themselves. Also frankly, some of them are not easy to talk to...they resemble more of the "new atheist" type where instead of sticking to logic and reasonable conversation, they prefer to mock and ridicule as a defense (just as Dawkins advocated).

And you can´t find a single instance here where an atheist said it?

I do not recall if anyone in this forum did that. Does that prove I never heard it?

Nobody, atheists or theists, should use a poor argument, particularly not if someone else has created it for a strawman.

This not a straw-man. I personally heard these comments from atheists. But I can understand why you find it hard to believe, because yes...it's contradictory.

 

[Joshua260]

You have brought up religious testimony yourself.

Not true. I only brought it up when one questioned whether we had evidence...and that question was off-topic. I tolerated it for a while, but I'm not responding to those questions anymore.

 

[bhsmte]

Not true. I only brought it up when one questioned whether we had evidence...and that question was off-topic. I tolerated it for a while, but I'm not responding to those questions anymore.

Of course you are not, too much risk involved with addressing the religious testimony of those with a different faith.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Per the forum guidelines, I'd like to stay on topic with this thread and not get distracted into a theological debate.

I have a simple question:
1. Many atheists claim that Christians have a "blind faith" (meaning that they believe something with zero evidence to support their belief).


2. Many atheists also claim that one cannot choose to believe something. Rather, they say that people only come to believe something through the evaluation of persuasive evidence.

Isn't it contradictory for a single atheist to simultaneously profess that both claims stated above are true?

No It isn’t contradictory if they state that because in 1. they are stating that the evidence you use in their eyes is blind, meaning they see nothing that you do as evidence, they are blind to what you see, thus in their eyes its blind faith, the belief has no basis for existing. Of course you will say that ‘this’ is evidence etc, (and your basis) to which they will counter that argument with the zero evidence assessment and why its so, thus proving your blind approach, to which you will counter that argument with your own.

They also (no. 2.) understand that you (as an example) believe that you have evidence for your belief, but they state that they cannot ‘choose’ to belief what you do because they are not persuaded by the same evidence you are, thus no belief can be formed, thus your faith is blind. The issue is what we choose to believe as evidence, what you may choose as persuasive may not be so for another.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

I agree, we do have evidence. Some atheists refuse to admit that much.


Why would you treat all of the multiple attestation testimonies that support the Resurrection any different than any other historical documents (which are also subjective evidences)? This looks like a priori bias against Christianity.

Edit. off topic.

 

[JGG]

I'm amazed at the gall you have in telling me that no atheists has ever told me those things. I'm telling you the truth from personal experience. Atheists have told me that there's not a shred of evidence for the Christian faith, and then those same atheists have claimed that people only come to believe through evidence.

Great. Show me. At the moment, these are your claims, not any atheist as far as we can tell.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that people do not come to believe something based on evidence? I got to admit...I've never heard that one.

No, I imagine you haven't. First, let's recognize that you have a very broad definition of evidence: Personal testimony is not evidence, as simply stating something does not make it true. Second, while evidence may lead to belief for some people in some instances, it is not the only way we form beliefs. In fact, it's pretty rare. Usually our beliefs are shaped through many other different "filters" which I listed earlier, and don't feel like doing again.

 

[JGG]

No I did not agree that atheists never say these things. I have personally heard atheists make these claims.

Great. Show me. If you can't, we can assume you're making it up.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The point of the OP is that an atheist cannot rationally claim that we Christians have a blind faith (as in having zero evidence) and at the same time claim that the only way people come to believe is through evidence. The two claims are contradictory. Whether or not there is evidence (subjective, objective, real, or imaginary) is a different question.
Sprechen sie English?

You gotta admit it sounds pretty weird that you managed to ask these mystery atheists what they meant by "blind faith" and yet didn't think to ask them why they were making a contradictory statement?

Ok...

Why would you ask the atheists here about the rationale behind statements made by other atheists? Especially since its been pointed out that none of us define blind faith the same way these mystery atheists of yours do.

 

[quatona]

Some I heard on the radio, others were from personal conversations and it did not occur to me at the time that they had actually contradicted themselves. Also frankly, some of them are not easy to talk to...they resemble more of the "new atheist" type where instead of sticking to logic and reasonable conversation, they prefer to mock and ridicule as a defense (just as Dawkins advocated).
I do not recall if anyone in this forum did that. Does that prove I never heard it?

No, and I don´t know if you´ve heard it and if your representation of what you heard is accurate.
The fact that you can´t produce one single example just demonstrates that it is - if ever - rarely used.

So, lets charitably assume you have really heard someone giving this argument in the exact way you represented it. So you have once or twice heard someone make a stupid argument. I´m wondering why you make such a fuzz about it. Mountain - molehill. You once or twice heard an atheist saying something stupid. Bummer.

This not a straw-man. I personally heard these comments from atheists.

So you say. You can´t, however, give us a single quote. You ask us to rely on the accuracy of your memory
But I can understand why you find it hard to believe, because yes...it's contradictory.[/QUOTE]
No, the reason I find it hard to believe is not because it´s a poor argument (I´m well aware that people make poor arguments occasionally, so no surprise there). The reason I find it hard to believe is that you can´t produce one single quote in which this argument is used that way.
The flaw in the argument depends entirely on the exact wording in which you presented it, as well as your interpretation thereof. Since there isn´t a considerable number of examples that we can compare to your wording and interpretation (heck, you aren´t able to produce even a single one), I conclude this is a total non-issue, at best blown out of proportions.