With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Open discussion for all registered members.

With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Postby DjVortex » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:37 pm

When asked for evidence, some believers will try to present things that they (invariably mistakenly) consider evidence for the existence of God.

However, other believes swing to the extreme opposite: They argue that God doesn't give evidence of himself on purpose, because if there was definitive evidence then you wouldn't need faith.

I fail to understand what the argument actually is. Why would faith be such an important thing in this whole process? What exactly is it that they are trying to say? I don't really get it.
DjVortex
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:45 am

Re: With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Postby Lausten » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:26 pm

It can be different things to different people. To some, it is a feeling, that feeling of letting go, giving yourself to a higher power, it lifts burdens off your shoulders and puts them up there. Of course it is just imaginary, which it makes it dangerous, but a lot of people can report the feeling, compare notes and claim they have something. I think this trumps any logic and is what is keeping religion in place.

It also goes along with the free will argument. That God created everything for people and then gave them free will to choose to love him for it or not. Something about that being more powerful or something. There's more to it, but I'm tired of trying to regurgitate theistic arguments.

For others it's an escape hatch out of logic, that they probably think has some logic to it, but they have a poor understanding of logic. I see this in discussions. The theist starts with citing sources and building an argument based on historical evidence. All of which is easy to poke holes in. At some point, they switch and say you have to first trust the Bible as a source of truth or there is no point in continuing the discussion. I sometimes ask why they didn't just say that in the first place, but they act it was a given, or that I should have known.

This doesn't have to be just Christians either. I've had some pretty knock down arguments with people that I thought were reasonable, but I don't accept their latest Internet movie or obscure pseudo-scientists as a source and suddenly they are going ballistic on me. Even in business, I have had management tell me that if I just believed in the philosophy of the company, the company would do better.
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Re: With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Postby DjVortex » Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:59 pm

Lausten wrote:It can be different things to different people. To some, it is a feeling, that feeling of letting go, giving yourself to a higher power, it lifts burdens off your shoulders and puts them up there. Of course it is just imaginary, which it makes it dangerous, but a lot of people can report the feeling, compare notes and claim they have something. I think this trumps any logic and is what is keeping religion in place.


I don't understand what faith (as in "believing in God without evidence") has to do with that.

It also goes along with the free will argument. That God created everything for people and then gave them free will to choose to love him for it or not. Something about that being more powerful or something. There's more to it, but I'm tired of trying to regurgitate theistic arguments.


I think that's confusing "free will" with "willingness to believe (without evidence)". Evidence does not remove free will. You don't have to love or hate someone even if you have all the evidence in the world to back up his existence.

For others it's an escape hatch out of logic, that they probably think has some logic to it, but they have a poor understanding of logic. I see this in discussions. The theist starts with citing sources and building an argument based on historical evidence. All of which is easy to poke holes in. At some point, they switch and say you have to first trust the Bible as a source of truth or there is no point in continuing the discussion. I sometimes ask why they didn't just say that in the first place, but they act it was a given, or that I should have known.


But I still don't understand why they consider faith without evidence a good and desirable thing. What's their rationale?
DjVortex
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:45 am

Re: With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Postby Lausten » Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:54 am

What's their rationale?
Well, it's not rational. Isn't that obvious?
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Re: With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Postby DjVortex » Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:55 am

Lausten wrote:
What's their rationale?
Well, it's not rational. Isn't that obvious?


They have to answer something when asked "why?" Or do they all just keep quiet?
DjVortex
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:45 am

Re: With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Postby Lausten » Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:18 am

They have to answer something when asked "why?" Or do they all just keep quiet?

"something" may or may not be rational
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Re: With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Postby DjVortex » Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:28 am

Lausten wrote:
They have to answer something when asked "why?" Or do they all just keep quiet?

"something" may or may not be rational


This doesn't answer my question. I am curious to know why they argue that blind faith without evidence is a good and desirable thing.
DjVortex
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:45 am

Re: With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Postby Lausten » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:56 am

I know it doesn't give you a rational answer to your question. I'm saying you're unlikely to get one. Maybe instead you should try to understand the motivation for the answers you actually get.
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Re: With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Postby Cephus » Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:36 pm

DjVortex wrote:
Lausten wrote:
They have to answer something when asked "why?" Or do they all just keep quiet?

"something" may or may not be rational


This doesn't answer my question. I am curious to know why they argue that blind faith without evidence is a good and desirable thing.


A lot of them have been taught that blind faith is a good thing and refuse to let go of it. As far as I'm concerned, not having faith in a thing is a good thing. I don't want to have faith. I want to have evidence. I want to make a decision based on the best available information that we have, with the understanding that it might change at some point in the future with the advent of better data.

Of course, a lot of theists are terrified of anything *EVER* changing. They want something they can believe will be true forever and always. That's why they have faith in the first place. It's not an interest in what's true, it's an interest in what feels good.
Want to know more? http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com
Religion is a mental disease.
Cephus
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:55 am
Location: Redlands, CA

Re: With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Postby Lausten » Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:16 pm

Thanks Cephus. I read a couple of your blog posts too. Interesting, but white text on black background messes with my rods and cones, so I had to stop.
Lausten
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Location: N. Minnesota

Re: With evidence you wouldn't need faith

Postby Cephus » Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:29 pm

Yeah, I kind of agree. I used to have a really cool custom theme on there that I got tired of, then Wordpress updates rendered it unworking. I ought to see if it's ever been updated so I can replace it.
Want to know more? http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com
Religion is a mental disease.
Cephus
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:55 am
Location: Redlands, CA


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron