Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?

[KingandPriest]

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

[Bust Nak]

The faith area and the confidence area are the same area.

Then there is nothing further to discuss. We don't have enough common ground to carry on debating because we don't agree on basic premises. Given the premise that faith and confidence is the same thing, then accepted scientific theories are trivially statements of "faith." The whole discussion is trivialized by not acknowledging the difference between "faith and confidence.

[KingandPriest]

The faith area and the confidence area are the same area.

Then there is nothing further to discuss. We don't have enough common ground to carry on debating because we don't agree on basic premises. Given the premise that faith and confidence is the same thing, then accepted scientific theories are trivially statements of "faith." The whole discussion is trivialized by not acknowledging the difference between "faith and confidence.

Can you prove that my premise is wrong that the "faith area and the confidence area are the same area"?

Can you show clear distinction between the "faith area" and the "confidence area"?

If my premise is wrong, I am open to correction.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 62 by KingandPriest]

There is nothing to proof, it's a matter of semantics, or differ definitions. I can only advice you not to stick with the meaning you choose but adopt mine, if you do not want to make the discussion trivial.

[KingandPriest]

The faith area and the confidence area are the same area.

Then there is nothing further to discuss. We don't have enough common ground to carry on debating because we don't agree on basic premises. Given the premise that faith and confidence is the same thing, then accepted scientific theories are trivially statements of "faith." The whole discussion is trivialized by not acknowledging the difference between "faith and confidence.

Can you prove that my premise is wrong that the "faith area and the confidence area are the same area"?

Can you show clear distinction between the "faith area" and the "confidence area"?

If my premise is wrong, I am open to correction.

[Replying to post 62 by KingandPriest]

There is nothing to proof, it's a matter of semantics, or differ definitions. I can only advice you not to stick with the meaning you choose but adopt mine, if you do not want to make the discussion trivial.

So unless I adopt your definitions, the discussion is trivial.

If I may ask, what are your definitions of the word faith and the word confidence?

Again I ask, Do these definitions show a clear distinction between the "faith area" and the "confidence area"?

Why should we adopt your definitions?

How does does rejecting your definitions make this discussions trivial?

[Bust Nak]

If I may ask, what are your definitions of the word faith and the word confidence?

Something along the lines of:
Faith - being certain without sufficient evidence.
Confidence - being certain with sufficient evidence.

Again I ask, Do these definitions show a clear distinction between the "faith area" and the "confidence area"?

The amount of evidence.

How does does rejecting your definitions make this discussions trivial?

Because it would make every claim a matter of faith. Sun rises from the East? Faith. Faith. God will heal me of cancer? Faith. It trivialize the different between these statements.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 65 by Bust Nak]

Because it would make every claim a matter of faith. Sun rises from the East? Faith. Faith. God will heal me of cancer? Faith. It trivialize the different between these statements.

Exactly. Christians I've talked to tend to describe their God as being something special, their relationship with him as being something special, something grander than the mundane world.
So whenever I see a theist make this line of argumentation, trying to make everything out to be an act of faith, I'm confused, because it immediately reduces their God. I have faith that my car will run? If he wants to call it that, then fine, but now, he is using the same word to describe the confidence I have in my car as he does for his god. If my car doesn't in fact run, no biggie. The way I view the world, everything I believe, doesn't depend on my car starting. I'd be annoyed that I probably have to take it to the shop to get fixed, but that's understandable.
But just imagine the theist's god not 'running'?

[KingandPriest]

If I may ask, what are your definitions of the word faith and the word confidence?

Something along the lines of:
Faith - being certain without sufficient evidence.
Confidence - being certain with sufficient evidence.

Again I ask, Do these definitions show a clear distinction between the "faith area" and the "confidence area"?

The amount of evidence.

How does does rejecting your definitions make this discussions trivial?

Because it would make every claim a matter of faith. Sun rises from the East? Faith. Faith. God will heal me of cancer? Faith. It trivialize the different between these statements.

Who or what deems sufficiency in your definitions of faith and confidence above?

Both of your definitions show that faith and confidence have some supporting evidence. You say the difference is which evidence is sufficient and which evidence is not sufficient.

To you the big difference between faith and confidence is sufficiency of evidence. Both have evidence, you deem one more sufficient than the other.

Is sufficiency subjective or objective?

I ask because, if it is subjective there is no reason to reject the current definition in favor of a subjective definition that changes from person to person.

[Bust Nak]

Who or what deems sufficiency in your definitions of faith and confidence above?

Well, lets get the obvious out of the way - scientists gets to decide, their standard - empiricism. It's hard to get more objective than that.

[KingandPriest]

Who or what deems sufficiency in your definitions of faith and confidence above?

Well, lets get the obvious out of the way - scientists gets to decide, their standard - empiricism. It's hard to get more objective than that.

So by the standard of empiricism, my claim is validated.

There are many theories which are supported by faith and faith alone.

The evidence supporting the theory is not sufficient (as deemed by empiricism) and should be called faith.

You just proved why my position is valid. Thank you.

I talked about the age of the sun vs age of the earth, and how it is supported by the assumption that the nebular hypothesis is correct. I showed how nebular hypothesis is not supported by direct empirical evidence (not sufficient as defined by empiricism) and is thus considered faith even by your definition.

You stated "Faith is being certain without sufficient evidence". The nebular hypothesis is the current accepted model of solar system formation in terms of chronology without sufficient (empirical) evidence.

[Divine Insight]

You claim faith and trust are not the same, or even remotely similar. You have not provided any support for your claim other than your opinion.

I have provided support to show where scientists themselves have used the word believe or belief as the reason for supporting a theory. They believe the theory is correct, so they interpret new data based on their belief (trust/faith) in a theory.

You haven't provided any support for your opinions at all. In fact, you seem to be totally ignoring the overwhelming importance that scientists interpret data. And it is this data in which they place their trust.

The problem with theological faith is that there is no data to support it. To the contrary all that exists are ancient stories that are extremely self-contradictory, and even utterly absurd. For example, these stories claim to be about an all-wise intelligent creator, yet these stories have this creator behaving in extremely ignorant, unintelligent and immature ways. The Biblical creator is even described as being jealous, vengeful, and is quick to harm anyone who refuses to obey his ultimate authority. That's actually an extreme contradiction in character to the idea of a supposedly intelligent, sane, loving "fatherly" type of God.

So there isn't even any comparison at all between the faith/trust that scientists give to the data they can observe and measure, versus the faith/trust that theists give to ancient absurd and extremely contradictory fables for which there is no supporting data at all.

So I would suggest that you equivalency of these two types of faith/trust, is either based on extreme denial on your behalf, or it is an outright attempt to play semantic games in order to bring science down to the meaningless level of theology.

And again, how would that help theology anyway? All your argument attempts to do is to say that science is just as meaningless as theology. And that they both stand on precisely equal ground in terms of faith/trust, which is clearly false anyway.

I am not trying to impress anyone. Not trying to impress a girl back in high school.

The reason the argument continues to be presented over and over again is because some scientific theories are not supported by direct empirical evidence. They are supported on the assumption that they are correct. This is the same type of assumption which is made to assume that the bible's claims about God are correct.

The key here is that only some scientific "theories" are not supported by direct empirical evidence. And I'll be the first to open admit (and even scold the scientific community itself) that they use the term "theory" far too loosely, often times when they should be using the term "Hypothesis" instead. A perfect example is "String Theory". No scientist actually believes that String Theory has been scientifically confirmed to be true, or that there even exists any direct evidence observable to confirm String Theory. Therefore they should be calling it "String Hypothesis" instead.

However, there is a reason they do this. Science doesn't claim that every "Theory" in science is backed up by observable evidence. They use the term "theory" to simply mean "explanation" and they feel that String Theory offers many explanations for things even though there is no observable evidence to back these explanations up yet. So many of them do indeed have a "religious type of faith" that String Theory may someday be demonstrated to be true based upon actual observable evidence.

But the KEY here is that science in general does not proclaim that String Theory has been confirmed, nor do they claim that this represents scientific "Truth".

However, in the generally accepted scientific theories such as the theory of Evolution, and Special Relativity, and even the Big Bang, the observable evidence is overwhelming, these "theories" could today be called "Physical Laws" actually they are that well confirmed by actual observable evidence.

So you are wrong to suggest that scientific theories are based on the same lack of evidence that theology is based on.

That's just flat out wrong. It's a misrepresentation of what science actually knows to be true.

More opinions do not substantiate your claim. I realize it is impossible to talk about God without talking about faith. To begin to properly debate and in my case present arguments in favor of accepting Jesus Christ, it is important to lay a foundation based on faith.

It is not wise to build a house or any other construct (in this case a belief system) without the proper foundation. If we jump into complex spiritual conversations without understanding faith, we will be debating on quicksand and neither argument will stand very long. This is my 3rd thread on the topic of faith, because I am focused on laying the appropriate foundation. There are many good reasons and supporting evidence to support my claims. You want to discuss the walls and roof of Christianity without discussing the foundation.

I have studied Christianity and related Biblical religions for decades. I hold that there is no "foundation" to Christianity. There is absolutely no good reason to believe that these Hebrew fables are true.

If you truly want to discuss "The Foundation for Belief in the Hebrew Bible", I suggest you start a thread on that topic and present the evidence you believe constitutes that foundation. I will gladly reply to that topic with my explanations for why I find your reasons to be unconvincing. And I'm certain that I will find them to be unconvincing.

But instead of addressing that topic (which you know would be extremely problematic, you have chosen to instead try to argue that the scientists have no better reasons to believe what they believe than theists do, and that argument is simply false.

Science is based on DATA (measurable, observable data)

Theology is based on ancient stories that have no credibility at all, they can even be shown to be extremely self-contradictory. And their supposedly all-wise supreme creator behaves more like the male-chauvinistic barbarians who wrote those stories. It's totally unconvincing and has not meaningful foundation at all.

I dont wish to drag science down anywhere. I am not attempting to talk about science at all. I am discussing the faith people have in some scientific theories. There is a difference between talking about science or a scientific theory, and the faith a person places in science or a scientific theory.

Scientists place faith in observable measurable data.

Theologians place their faith in ancient barbaric self-contradictory tales of an imagined jealous God character for which there exists no evidence for at all.

How can you claim that these two types of "faith" are in any way equivalent?

On is based on evidence, the other is based on outrageous self-contradictory fables for which there is no evidence at all.

I am not arguing for or against a secular world view. I am comparing specific instances where faith is used to support a scientific theory, and specific cases where faith is used to support a claim in Christianity. There are numerous scientific theories which rely on direct empirical evidence. These do not require faith to be trusted, because the evidence is direct and indisputable. There are other scientific theories which are generally accepted even though they lack direct empirical evidence. I am specifically comparing faith in these theories to the faith that Jesus Christ is LORD.

I suggest that you are wrong about scientific theories that are generally accepted that have no direct empirical evidence. You are probably thinking about scientific "theories" that are NOT generally accepted to be TRUE. Like String Theory for example. It may appear to have been generally accepted, but its actually being accepted as a promising hypothesis not as a proven scientific theory.

And if you argue that the generally accepted theories of science, such as Evolution, Special Relativity, and the Big Bang are not based on direct evidence than I would argue with you on that claim wholeheartedly.

I would agree with your last statement, but I have a feeling most if not all atheist would not. Belief that God is, is on the same rational grounds as belief that God does not exist. Most atheist would argue that they do not "believe" God does not exist. They would assert they lack belief in the existence of God. Since they claim a lack of belief, the two are no longer on the same rational ground. If atheists claimed to believe that God does not exist, this would place their beliefs on the same level as a person who does believe in God. It is the lack of belief which separates the two positions.

Actually I disagree. Believing that a God does not exist is quite rational. If there is no evidence that a God exists, then believing that it doesn't exist is rational.

On the other hand believing that a God exists when the is no evidence to support that belief is irrational. And to continue to believe that a very specific God exist when the evidence against it is overwhelming is even more irrational.

In the case of the Biblical God that evidence against that particular God is overwhelming.

I don't argue that all faiths are equivalent. I argue that faith is used outside of a religious context to accept something as true. I also argue that they type of evidence presented goes a long way to building or reducing a persons faith in a claim or person.

Fine. In that case they why waste your time trying to make a false equivalency between the "faith" that scientists place in data with the "faith" that you place in Hebrew mythology?

Why not just stick with arguing why you think that Hebrew mythology makes more sense than any other religious myths.

And if you are going to support just one offshoot of Hebrew mythology (like say Christianity), then you need to explain why that particular offshoot makes more sense than the other factions of the same mythology.

Arguing that scientists have the same kind of faith as Christian Theologians is nothing short of absurd. And it's not going to do your cause any good at all.

When did I ever argue that worldviews are equivalent?

Well, if you argue that placing faith in a secular scientific worldview is no different from placing faith in say a Christian religious worldview, then you are necessarily saying that both of these worldviews stand on precisely the same ground. They are equivalent in terms of both being nothing more than a faith-based guess.

That's necessarily your argument whether you realize it or not. You are attempting to argue that both "faiths" are identical in terms of being rational or irrational.

That's your argument. Science is based on "faith" just like your religious beliefs.

Therefore you are necessarily arguing that they both have precisely equivalent merit (or lack of merit). You are saying they are the SAME in terms of faith.

What makes one persons faith justified or another persons faith rejected is the type, quantity and quality of the supporting evidence. This is a fair question and may be worthy of a separate thread.

I would suggest that as a theist that is your only hope of making any arguments for the merit of your faith.

And I will you the best of luck with that, because you'll need it to be sure.

As I stated above, my desire is to lay the appropriate foundation for a later discussion about spiritual claims made in Christianity. Without the appropriate foundation, it will be impossible to have a reasoned and well informed debate.

If your "foundation" requires that people view faith placed in observable measurable data to be on precisely the same footing with faith placed in ancient self-contradictory barbaric rumors of a jealous God that have no verifiable data associated with them at all, then I'd say you have no foundation to work with.

You certainly haven't convinced me of your foundation.

You need to explain to me why I should place the same "faith" in ancient barbaric rumors of a jealous God as I would place in things I can actually observe and measure to be real.

Would you like to address this challenge?