PDA

View Full Version : Faith or faithless?



DoktorSick
January 30th, 2008, 03:33 AM
What's your opinion?
Do you need it or do can you do find without it.
Faith would appear to be big part of theistic/supernatural beliefs.
It's like the more you have the better the beliefs seem to work.
And another some say it's takes more faith to believe some say
it takes more for non-belief.

David19
January 30th, 2008, 09:04 PM
Personally, I think whether you're theistic or atheist, you still have faith. For example, I believe and have faith that multiple Gods exist, and I can only trust what I feel to be true, I can't "prove" it by giving scientific evidence, but I also think atheists have to have faith in not believing, 'cause, some might say "prove God or Gods exist" but I can say "prove they don't exist".

No idea if that made sense, I've had quite a bit to drink with my friends tonight, but I hope you understood that.

DoktorSick
January 31st, 2008, 03:49 PM
The problem is you don't prove a negative.
You have proof for something or you don't.
If i said pink bunnies lay eggs that hatch into stars.
I would I would have to prove that.If someone doesn't agree
they wouldn't have to disprove it.

Halstrom
January 31st, 2008, 04:13 PM
I agree with David. You don't have to believe in anything to have faith. You can have faith in science.

gwendar
January 31st, 2008, 07:19 PM
I just don't get how it takes faith to say, "I see no evidence supporting the existence of god(s)." One dictionary definition of faith is basically that it is believing in something even in the absence of evidence. Since science is based on evidence, how is that faith? Do you mean, faith that the scientific method works? Yet that wouldn't really be faith, since we have evidence that the scientific method works... I just don't understand, I guess...

I consider myself to have been faithless for about a year and a half maybe. (That's about the length of time I've been comfortable calling myself a non-theist.).
I'm function fine without faith, really. I'm not even sure there's a whole lot of difference between my life with faith, and without, in terms of occurances. Life is just life.
But lately I've been wondering and questioning again.
I used to think agnostic was a completely unnecessary word, because 'gnostic' refers to knowledge, and no one, no matter how strong their faith, knows the truth about god(s). As in, I could have called myself an agnostic atheist, but then I'd tack on agnostic to everyone else's faith title, too...
But lately I've been feeling that maybe agnostic is more valid than I had thought. I'm not sure I can have faith and believe in gods again... I do not think it is necessary or important, really. But I think I might be slowly regaining interest in spirituality...

Agaliha
August 10th, 2008, 03:33 AM
Personally, I think whether you're theistic or atheist, you still have faith. For example, I believe and have faith that multiple Gods exist, and I can only trust what I feel to be true, I can't "prove" it by giving scientific evidence, but I also think atheists have to have faith in not believing, 'cause, some might say "prove God or Gods exist" but I can say "prove they don't exist".
No idea if that made sense, I've had quite a bit to drink with my friends tonight, but I hope you understood that.

Actually the idea that atheists have faith in the way theists do is a myth and misunderstanding.

You might want to read this:

Myth:
You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith.
Answer: read here (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/faith.htm).

And here, has some related articles (http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/p/AtheismReligion.htm).

Also "faith" in science is not the same as faith in a religion, dogma, god or anything else in the theistic realm.

windblown
September 11th, 2008, 10:00 AM
This is too much for me to think about.

cheddarsox
September 11th, 2008, 07:35 PM
I have faith in/about lots of things. Most of them have nothing to do with religion or deities. I find it neccessary to my sanity to just believe some things without having to take the time, effort to study them and find several credible sources. I find I just can't live that way.

So I have faith, because otherwise I'd be a miserable paranoid nutcase.

I need faith in order to function, it quiets my brain about some things that I have no proof for. It's a mental pacifier.

Not real glamorous, but true.

If I could turn my brain functions on and off like programs on a computer, then I could just turn off the one's that were "in progress" trying to solve some issue and let the others go on about their business, but I can't do that (some people say meditation helps). So, if I didn't just take some things on faith...my system would crash.

windblown
September 13th, 2008, 08:21 PM
relate cheddarsox

Louisvillian
September 24th, 2008, 08:06 PM
I agree with David. You don't have to believe in anything to have faith. You can have faith in science.
Not quite. Science hinges on empirical and objective evidence. Empiricism is the converse of faith/belief.
However, in accepting scientific facts, what you are having faith in is the capacity for your senses to properly and accurate perceive the information you are receiving.
Secondly, in response more to David's assertion- you cannot prove a negative.

Anyway- I think that, even if one does not have faith in theistic opinions, or supernatural beliefs, one has faith in something. Be it oneself, one's family or country, or humanity as a whole.
And there are a wide number of non-theistic faiths, like Taoism or Buddhism (though these are not necessarily non-theistic) or LaVeyan Satanism (religious worship of the individual).