Why Does The Idea Of Having Faith Get a Bad Rep?

[Roseeurekacross]

Er, it doesn’t. Your priest says atheists aren’t really atheists, the data suggests otherwise. That’s the point I’m making.

answer the question, don’t change the subject, or don’t bring up an off topic.
And that is not what my Priest says, you are making gross assumptions that would be wrong

I don’t think you’d like my solution.

either put up, or scroll on by, Its not for me to like or dislike your solution. You claim to have one, share it or not, but don’t go running others down if you are not prepared to enter the debate.

I also happen to think that less religion is a good thing. While I support your right to believe whatever you want, the problem comes when religious belief is used to dictate to others what is and isn’t acceptable. Religious faith is, in general, a barrier to social and scientific progress and thus - ultimately - world prosperity.

You are not required or needed to support my right to believe whatever I want. What I believe is not something for you to concern yourself with.
why would you think it is?

Ah you are pulling out the old science argument. I hope you can discuss science now from a scientific perspective because guess what, I am a scientist.
so lets have your hypothesis for why religion is a barrier for scientific progress

 

[FredBloggs]

answer the question, don’t change the subject, or don’t bring up an off topic.
And that is not what my Priest says, you are making gross assumptions that would be wrong

Erm - you said:

My wonderful priest says atheists are very few in reality, most who profess atheism are agnostic, and on their journey home to God. the Agnosticism /atheism is a phase many go through on this journey.

How is that not saying that atheists are not really atheists?

I don’t think you’d like my solution.

either put up, or scroll on by, Its not for me to like or dislike your solution. You claim to have one, share it or not, but don’t go running others down if you are not prepared to enter the debate.

Of course I don’t have a solution, nor do I want one. But FWIW, the data indicates a strong correlation between religious faith and poverty/hardship/low social status. The suggestion has been made that people turn to religion when they have lost hope. This is supported anecdotally by the fact that the US is a massive outlier when it comes to religious faith, compared to the rest of the Western world. It also has the worst welfare system in the Western world. It has the largest divide between rich and poor in the Western world. Correlation is not causation, of course.

So my “solution” (which of course is no solution at all) would be that if you really wanted to turn people to faith, dispossess them. Make them poorer, make them outcasts, deprive them of hope and opportunity.

You are not required or needed to support my right to believe whatever I want. What I believe is not something for you to concern yourself with.
why would you think it is?

Why the aggression? I was simply pointing out the difference between an individual’s right to believe, and their right to force their beliefs on others. You seem very thin-skinned.

Ah you are pulling out the old science argument. I hope you can discuss science now from a scientific perspective because guess what, I am a scientist.
so lets have your hypothesis for why religion is a barrier for scientific progress

I was speaking in very general terms. However, a few examples:

• Females aren’t allowed an education in many Middle Eastern countries… because of religion
• Anthropogenic climate change is denied by many religious groups, who seem convinced that Jesus will look after us.
• The sole objection to the teaching of evolution in US schools is because it doesn’t comport with Creationism
• The reason for disbelief in evolution amongst adults is because it’s contrary to Creationsim
• Christianity holds various things to be true that science has proved are false. A selection:
  1. The Genesis story
  2. Garden of Eden
  3. The Great Flood
  4. Dead people coming back to life

 

[Roseeurekacross]

How is that not saying that atheists are not really atheists?

FredBloggs:

really, do we have to dissect sentences.
My priest says there are very few atheists,.
thats what I said
now you reinterpreted that to mean something completely different.

that atheists are not really atheists

the fault is yours.

And given you will continue reinterpreting every sentence, until you don’t,

have a nice day

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Of course I don’t have a solution, nor do I want one

well well, you actually claimed you did have a solution

may I remind you of your words

I don’t think you’d like my solution.

have a nice day

btw your fundamentalist argument won’t fly with me. If you were informed, you would know that we do not interpret the Bible in a fundamentalist way , if we are to interpret correctly in accordance with our Religion

 

[FredBloggs]

FredBloggs:

Of course I don’t have a solution, nor do I want one

well well, you actually claimed you did have a solution

may I remind you of your words

I don’t think you’d like my solution.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, back when I thought we were having an amicable and reasonable conversation. But you’ve gotten so defensive and dismissive that it’s clear that’s not possible.

have a nice day

I will, thanks

btw your fundamentalist argument won’t fly with me. If you were informed, you would know that we do not interpret the Bible in a fundamentalist way , if we are to interpret correctly in accordance with our Religion

Who is “we?” Do you speak for all Christians? If you were informed, you would know that self-identifying Christians span the entire spectrum, from biblical literalists through to wishy-washy barely-believers. It’s also ironic that you confess to cherry-picking the Bible (the word of God, no?) according to what your chosen version of Christianity tells you. Which begs the question: what doctrine defines your religion, and what’s its source, if not the Bible?

 

[FredBloggs]

FredBloggs:

How is that not saying that atheists are not really atheists?

FredBloggs:

really, do we have to dissect sentences.

Only when you deny what you wrote previously.

My priest says there are very few atheists,.
thats what I said
now you reinterpreted that to mean something completely different.

You said, “My wonderful priest says atheists are very few in reality, most who profess atheism are agnostic, and on their journey home to God.”

It seems pretty unequivocal to me. And it doesn’t correlate with the evidence collected by polls by Pew etc. I queried it, because how does your priest know how many atheists there are?

But if you want to pretend you wrote something else, go right ahead. You’ve had plenty of opportunity to clarify what you meant, but have chosen to argue instead of discuss.

that atheists are not really atheists

the fault is yours.

And given you will continue reinterpreting every sentence, until you don’t,

Well, all sentences are subject to interpretation. That’s why we have sensible debate to try and avoid ambiguity. Only you’ve chosen not to, for reasons that are your own.

have a nice day

 

[IWantGod]

Each individual determines their own purpose and significance. Then navigate the world they are presented.

So you have chosen option 1.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m trying to tread lightly out of respect for this venue, but how are those two options different?

It’s obvious. Option 1 is where people resign to the belief that physical reality is all there is and so they are forced to pretend as if their lives are not pointless, and so they knowingly make-believe their significance (unless they are delusional) given their presumption of metaphysical naturalism. This is not the same thing as faith since a metaphysical naturalist thinks that there is only physical things and therefore that person ought to know there is no such thing as meaning. Therefore when they act as if their life truly has significance this is the very essence of make-belief given their ontological commitments. Thus their attempt to find meaning in their life is irrational because it does not actually reflect the reality of their ontological situation as they believe it to be.

Option 2. Accepts that we do not know the ultimate nature of reality and that perhaps there is more to reality than what is merely seen. Therefore having hope in this possibility is not the same thing as make-belief because it’s possibly true; at least we have no a-prior reason to think that it is not possible. While having hope does not necessitate that my existence really does have significance or moral worth, it does mean that the those who have faith are more rational then those who do not because those who do not still strive for true meaning despite the fact that their beliefs about the nature of reality makes such an idea impossible and meaningless. Thus in finding ourselves with a nature that thrives on a sense of meaning/significance, a sense of moral worth, and purpose (something that physical reality alone cannot provide), we choose to have faith or hope in the idea that our lives really do have significance, moral value, and purpose, because it reflects our dignity as personal beings to do so.

It does not reflect our dignity to believe that our natures cannot be truly fulfilled in this way, and humanistic make-belief is not a reasonable substitute.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I suppose the big sticking point is the presumed importance of “meaning”. I just can’t subscribe to the view that a purpose or meaning defined or declared by someone outside of myself is needed.

Things have a meaning or purpose defined eternally. A tree branch is a source of food (fruit it bares), a walking stick, a club, a spear, a bow, heat, etc based on the person’s whim. People otoh can and do define their own purpose. Some choose to follow God’s will, some happiness, some charity, etc.

 

[DarkLight]

From my conversations most who give “Faith” a bad rap are actually giving fundamental Protestantism a bad rap.

Yes - there’s a certain very loud section of fundamentalist protestantism that has a tendency to use faith as a reason to engage in behavior that the rest of the world calls “being a jerk.”

 

[IWantGod]

Things have a meaning or purpose defined eternally.

If our experiences of reality really does have meaning and isn’t just a fantasy, and it isn’t just our brain making it seem like it is when it is not, then metaphysical naturalism is false.

 

[IWantGod]

I just can’t subscribe to the view that a purpose or meaning defined or declared by someone outside of myself is needed.

Some people are okay with make-belief, making up life as they go along, like a user-experience in a game or something. The idea that life is what you make it is appealing to some people as a philosophy since it promises a degree of autonomy that one simply cannot have in other philosophies of life. If you cannot see how your belief in metaphysical naturalism robs you of your dignity as a personal being, then that is your bag. That’s your prerogative at the end of the day. What i will not agree with is the idea that living “life” (whatever you imagine that to be) in that manner is more rational than having faith. The idea that someone is more rational for living in their own self-made humanistic fantasy than someone who places their hope in a theistic point of view is ridiculous to me.

 

[STT]

Our natures allow us to have feelings toward things, this leads us to have options, like-dislike. You cannot define moral value based on like-dislike. You cannot define moral value based on logic either. You need meaning of life to realize moral value. Meaning of life is something that we don’t know/experience yet. Meaning might be a dream.

 

[IWantGod]

Meaning of life is something that we don’t know/experience yet. Meaning might be a dream.

In other-words you think it might not be real? I agree that it might not be real, but i am willing to have faith that our lives and what we do does truly have meaning/significance. There is a point to life and it does matter what we do. In fact i experience real meaning in the feelings i have toward people and objects, which is not something i would expect if only physical objects existed.

 

[STT]

In fact i experience real meaning in the feelings i have toward people and objects, which is not something i would expect if only physical objects existed.

Feeling is different from meaning. You cannot find meaning in feeling. Otherwise people were no so confused about meaning of life.

 

[IWantGod]

I cannot find meaning in feeling. (emphasis mine)

I’m sorry to hear that. The same is not true for me.

 

[STT]

I’m sorry to hear that. The same is not true for me.

You see the difference. That means that the point of view is relative.

 

[IWantGod]

That means that the point of view is relative.

No, it just means you can’t see it. Anyone that has experienced guilt or love or shame or has had a sense of being good, or any of the emotions that humans have, will understand what i am talking about. It is the meaning we experience in them that allows us to distinguish between them. It is the very thing that allows us to connect with one-another on a meaningful and personal level; it is the thing that drives us. But not everyone is reasonable and many take these experiences for granted.

 

[STT]

No, it just means you can’t see it. Anyone that has experienced guilt or love or shame or has had a sense of being good, or any of the emotions that humans have, will understand what i am talking about. It is the meaning we experience in them that allows us to distinguish between them. It is the very thing that allows us to connect with one another on a meaningful level. But not everyone is reasonable and many take these experiences for granted.

Love, guilt, shame, etc. born from our nature. They exist to ensure that life keeps going. Can you define meaning that you found?

 

[IWantGod]

They exist to ensure that life keeps going.

So they exist for a purpose in your point of view.