Atheism and Faith

[Edella]

Originally Posted by Saitia

Without the essence of faith insight, knowledge is little more than a peculiar form of protoplasmic memory material.

Wow! I must have read that twenty times,and I still don't know what it means.What is the"essence of faith insight?"Why can't(shouldn't) knowledge be "little more than a peculiar form of protoplasmic memory material?"If that's what it is.Where does"the essence of faith insight" come in to play with ones knowledge of say, the internal combustion engine?Perhaps I'm taking the sentence out of context,but it seems it can stand alone.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

...one walks into a friend's house and their new dog is pacing the floor looking agitated. One may interpret that as a sign of aggression. But if one went into the dog's head, he may just need to use the bathroom but doesn't want to miss the new company. Judging the behavior only on the outside would be off the base.

This interpretation of the dog's behavior would simply be wrong.Another person,an animal behaviorist for instance,might reach the correct conclusion from the same vantage point(outside the dog's head),point being it is a matter of expertise.I'm not sure how we can get into the dog's head.

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

...humans in a cage surrounded by huge sharp people from another planet

Those huge sharp people are at it again?Damn them!

Originally Posted by ughaibu

So far the atheist position has been explored by several posters, but nobody has explained why they believe in god

Anyone?

[Rsade]

Originally Posted by Tormod

This is flawed logic. I accept the logic of the scientific method, which means that I can assume that what best describes the world is *currently* a reasonable thing to place my bets on. I don't need to "believe" that there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I *know* there is no planet there.

I beg to differ it is your logic that seems flawed to me Tormod. The universe exists. It had a beginning (according to your science dudes, and religious dudes as well) . Nothing can begin to exist without a cause!

The universe began. It had a cause. That cause was something. "It" could not be "nothing" because something cannot come from nothing and without a cause. Whew. What a word mess. A hurling of words so to speak. Word vomit. I could do better but my brain is fried now, I havent even had a toddy yet....ahhhh...

This is a very old philosophical argument that hasn't been surmounted yet, I welcome your comments.

PS there is only a probability that there is no planet between earth and Mars. Nothing is 100% certain, nothing in this universe, anyway.

[Saitia]

[quote=Eclogite]Saitia offered a post critical of atheists' attitudes. Tormod responded thus:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tormod:
"To be frank, your post reeks of self-rightousness."

That was a much clearer and concise response
than the one I was formulating as I read Saitia's attack.

My my; people hemmorage around here from a slight breeze!

[Eclogite]

Saitia,
your original post crticised the subjectivity, myopia, narrowmindedness and prejudice of athiests. It did so with the deliberate use of emotional language, implicit insults and explicit hyperbole. I think it was appropriate to characterise that as reeking of self righteousnessas Tormod did.

You must have been aware of the inflammatory tone of your post, yet you chose to proceed with it. You could have made the same points of substance in a balanced, objective manner. Instead you allowed what seems to be a powerful distaste for athiests to degenerate into a visible and intentional display of disgust and disrespect.

In these circumstances is it surprising that your attack was met with dismissive condemnation?

[Saitia]

Hello Eclogite,

Originally Posted by Eclogite

Saitia,
your original post crticised the subjectivity, myopia, narrowmindedness and prejudice of athiests. It did so with the deliberate use of emotional language, implicit insults and explicit hyperbole.

All quite demonstrably untrue, especially the latter. You continue to ignore the fact there was an explicit request to address "arrogance" as a root cause of atheism, which I did without ANY unnecessary adjectives or other emotional language. Since you are one who has no qualms about deliberately expounding your "elitist and patronizing view" that belief in God is "dumb," perhaps you'd be good enough to quote my "implicit insults" and explicit hyperbole" from your point of view, and I'll gladly take another look.

I think it was appropriate to characterise that as reeking of self righteousnessas Tormod did.

Not according to the rules this forum publishes for its use; it's a rude and derogatory ad hominem, quite unlike the general statement I made about some characteristics atheists share with religionists which reflect my personal experience with them, which I expressed with both honesty and fairness.

You must have been aware of the inflammatory tone of your post, yet you chose to proceed with it.

How is my post any more "inflammatory" than your own remarks quoted above that my belief in God is "dumb"?
What is inflammatory" about mentioning the arousal of my sense of compassion to reach out to atheists??
Or clear self-effacement in allowing it could be my fault for being unskilled in my attempts to find understanding with atheists?

You could have made the same points of substance in a balanced, objective manner.

In a few paragraphs,
I pointed out that atheists must often deal with obtuse religionists;
I drew reference to the fact that religionists, like atheists, also fossilize their facts and thereby kill truth;
I pointed out that the extremes of philosophy produce both "insufferable religious fanatics," as well as "atheistic boors."
Just how much more "balance and objectivity" do you require in a single post??

Instead you allowed what seems to be a powerful distaste for athiests to degenerate into a visible and intentional display of disgust and disrespect.

More of your own subjective nonsense-- and every bit as much an "attack" on me and my words as you feel mine were.

In these circumstances is it surprising that your attack was met with dismissive condemnation?

It's never a surprise to me that any criticism of atheists— no matter how worded— is met with "dismissive condemnation"; it's precisely my point.

There are numerous examples across these boards of intolerance and "dismissive condemnation" by atheists of "believers" in particular. The very rules of the Theology Forum (written by an atheist, I believe) are quite remarkable in that they demonstrate, to use your characterizations, the very "subjectivity, myopia, narrow-mindedness, and prejudice of atheists" I'm talking about.

To wit, the Theology Forum rules begin by remarking on what it is not— a forum for "preaching the word of God." We can rightly assume he uses "preaching" in its derogatory meaning, but it's still rather condescending to assume those wishing to discuss theology must first be warned about "preaching," when numerous examples of atheists can be found on these boards "preaching" what amounts to Scientism.

The Notes go on to warn the theology forum is "not the place to explain why your religion"— your personal theology— is "much better" than the "alternatives." Whawwwwt!?

The expression of my religious thought— my theology— must not attempt to explain why it's "better" than, say, science?

Even if you can figure out a way to talk about your personal theology that doesn't violate that rule, in closing, we're informed the Theology Forum is a place which "first and foremost concerns the scientific aspects of religion, and not the faith aspects of it."

Holy Sht!!

So yeah, clueless losers, go ahead; talk about your "theology stuff"-- just make sure it's first and foremost about science, and even though religion and spirit is the realm of faith and can't be remotely meaningful without it, uh, you can't talk about faith.

But he saved the funny for last:
"Note that posts made in this forum do not show up in the "Lastest topics" bar in the right column, because most topics here tend not to be of a scientific nature." BBWWAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!

Thank you for helping pound science into my head

--Saitia

[Saitia]

Originally Posted by Edella

Wow! I must have read that twenty times,and I still don't know what it means.

Isn't that weird? What is it about reading things over and over that makes us think it will help?

What is the"essence of faith insight?"

I can tell you what I think it is; your mileage may vary.
To discover the essence of faith through insight requires
a few important attitudes. Deep reflection on universe
meanings. Sincere self-criticism. And real moral consciousness.
Real faith has the power to open the mind to spiritual insight.

But without the use of faith, truth can not become a
personal possession because a person's thoughts, wisdom,
ethics, and ideals will never rise higher than their faith.

Why can't(shouldn't) knowledge be "little more than a peculiar form of protoplasmic memory material?"If that's what it is.

It can be. But mere knowledge-- without the insight of faith--
cannot discover the means of eternal survival. So if 50, 60,
70, or 80 years is all you want, you're cool; forgettaboutit.

Where does"the essence of faith insight" come in to play with ones knowledge of say, the internal combustion engine? Perhaps I'm taking the sentence out of context,but it seems it can stand alone.

I once bought a weird little Japanese car called the "Prince" on the island of Guam for $50 bucks; it wouldn't run. We bought it to drive to the beach from the naval base. I set the points by eyeballing them, and I'll be damned if it didn't fire right up! But faith insight didn't have a thing to do with that; it was luck. Faith insight is the method of spirit, short and simple. Human things must be known before they can be loved. But spiritual things must be loved before they can be known. And that takes faith.

Cheers,
—Saitia

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Saitia

But without the use of faith, truth can not become a
personal possession because a person's thoughts, wisdom,
ethics, and ideals will never rise higher than their faith.

What a prejudiced point of view. If that's what faith does to people then I'm glad I don't have any.

[Rsade]

your original post crticised the subjectivity, myopia, narrowmindedness and prejudice of athiests. It did so with the deliberate use of emotional language, implicit insults and explicit hyperbole.

yeah so? I happen to agree with that post...wanna' fight about it?

just kidding couldnt resist.

[Saitia]

Originally Posted by C1ay

What a prejudiced point of view. If that's what faith does to people then I'm glad I don't have any.

Gosh; another open-minded, objective, insightful, unprejudiced senior editor weighs in. . .

"Prejudice" is a pre-conceived opinion not based on reason or actual experience; my point of view is based on reason, experience, and faith; having been agnostic and atheistic in my past, I know it was in no way "pre-conceived." How then is it "prejudiced"?

Your forum info says you're involved with "fluid power systems," C1ay;
if you would, apply that knowledge to the social stream of ideals in culture; how do you make that stream rise higher than it's source? What kind of pressure or control will elevate ideals above their current highest level?

And a pleasant how-do-you-do to you too.

—Saitia


Nothing in life is more wonderful than faith— the one great moving force which we can neither weigh in the balance nor test in the crucible. —Sir William Osler, Research Scientist

[orbsycli]

Originally Posted by Saitia

Nothing in life is more wonderful than faith— the one great moving force which we can neither weigh in the balance nor test in the crucible. —Sir William Osler, Research Scientist

Thus I just don't like that quote.
How can you say that there's ONE great moving force that cannot be weighed or balanced, then say that that one great moving force is faith?
That's absurd, and just sounds pretty.
Pretty stupid, if you ask me, which you didn't, but i felt the urge to chime in my opinion here.

"Sir," Thus egotistical,
thus delusional.