Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman
One of the most beautiful things about FAITH is that I do not have to prove there is a God.
|
Yes, we are in agreement there, at least that FAITH does indeed relieve the believer from having to prove anything, especially the most basic assumptions about their faith. (I remember that bumper sticker from the 70s, still around today: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." ) It should be no problem that millions of Muslims and Mormons also agree with you in the same way --they have faith, and lots of it! Their faith appears correct to them, and yours appears correct to you, and the most serious people in every faith probably share equal amounts and intensity of faith. Faith is probably allowed to claim ANYTHING or other is true and correct, and no one has to prove that anything is particularly testable or "true" concerning their faith, because that's the very nature of faith. However, as soon as anyone tries to prove some kind demonstrable truth behind their faith, then at that point the claims enter the realm of reason, in addition to faith. Once you accept that a "false faith" can be debunked with good reasoning, then at that point, there's decent reason to have a conversation. IOW, the likes of me (ex believer) can then speak with a strong believer such as you. But the thicker the shell of faith, the less common ground can be agreed upon (in most cases.) Nevertheless, Timmy and I are sincerely glad you stopped by TT to comment, Brother Eastman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman
I live joyously with that FAITH
|
I also lived joyously with my christian faith. In some sense, I miss it today, perhaps not unlike how a former smoker/alcoholic/drug addict may remember and miss the seemingly good feelings or heightened emotions of the bad habits they used to indulge. Joy and faith? Yes, it used to be pretty fun, interesting, and amazing to believe that a Magic Kingdom of bliss and reward awaited me after death. But I had to grow out of that--hard truths can be, uh, hard. Unfortunately, when we're dead that's it--for many people that's so unpleasant that religions are developed precisely to try to get around that fact (or to at least exploit the fear.) BTW, I say "fact" loosely--I only mean that permanent mortality is way, way more likely to be the truth than A Magic Kingdom for the (newly reconstituted!) Faithful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman
I am wrong, then, of course, I have lost NOTHING, and neither has the atheist.
However, if atheism is wrong, then the only thing the atheist loses is eternal life
|
So, is this version of Pascal's wager a primary reason that you believe, or even a good motive for anyone you preach at to believe in your god? An all-knowing god will instantly know whether someone's motivation for faith is because they merely hedged their bets to play the best odds to escape possible punishment in a supposed afterlife. Such a wager is never suggested in your bible, so it's possible you will lose everything if the above is really your motivation for believing. That particular thought experiment was popularized by 17th Century mathematician Blaise Pascal, who was a big Catholic. So, did accepting the wager do HIM any good, considering he naturally believed in the trinity, in the divinity of Mary, etc.? Or does the wager only "work" for your version of your god? Does the same wager apply to Muslims, and therefore they ought to similarly bet on obeying their version of their god and afterlife?
<< lost NOTHING, and neither has the atheist.>>
Many (ex believers especially) have lost an awful lot by buying into faith-based silliness. I took it quite seriously to trust Jesus in everything, and according to the bible, that is supposed to result in a big cost. Additionally, Paul taught, "Mortify your flesh," and "I die daily." To me, that cost now amounts to mostly loss because I will never recover the missed opportunities (of 20 years of young and mid adulthood.) Then, there's the time it takes to deprogram and reprogram oneself to think rationally instead of according to faith-based delusions. All that required years, IOW, loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman
burden of proof will always be upon them
|
Not necessarily. In every courtroom today, the one making the extraordinary claim is the one who has the burden of proof. Through history, same thing applies to some extent. For example, Copernicus made the unusual claim that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa (per traditional Ptolemaic model.) We know today that Copernicus had the better truth on his side, yet he still had the burden of proof due to his claim being the extraordinary one. In everyday life, the same principle should apply, but sometimes doesn't in societies where so much of the population already believes in a Magic Man in the sky. So, in American culture, the "unusual claim" may very well be that of the atheist. And that is why we argue--even though the better evidence is on our side, as was for Copernicus. It took some time for the truth to sink into European society, and some people couldn't stand such an offensive truth (as it implied earth was not the center of the god's creation.)
