Any comments are welcome

[subtleinspiration]

Can you prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually occurred? It seems to me that if a man came back from the dead that there would be more than one book about it.  I mean, seriously, he came back from the dead and the only book about it is the Bible? 

Fran can't even provide evidence that graves opened up and previously dead inhabitants of Jerusalem ended up milling about, let along Jesus Christ himself. Hell, she can't even give evidence that he even existed in the first place.

[tperl]

My only dispute is that i believe that atheists have to have more faith for their position than a Christian needs for theirs.

Fran - this statement above is laughable in my opinion.  Whatever "position" you are claiming atheists have (let's pick evolution as an example since most atheists agree with this explanation of how life has changed over time), are you really asserting that atheists have LESS evidence for holding those positions versus Christians?  If so, what evidence are you providing to slide the "faith scale" over?

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

I couldn't help but notice first of all, that Sagan makes absolutely no sense because a "believer" can be convinced of SOME THINGS.  For example, you can convince a "believer" that he is alive... or that the universe exists, etc, etc, etc.

You do understand the CONTEXT of the quote, right?  You aren't THAT slow are you?

So Sagan doesn't make much sense in that quote.

Actually, he does.  You can not convince a believer to believe something else.

I can't help but ask why couldn't a Christian turn it around and ask it of an atheist:

Who says you can't?

"You can't convince an atheist (or non believer) of the Resurrection of Christ; for their belief (or non belief) is not based on evidence (or even lack of evidence), but it's based on their deep-seated prior belief in complete materialism".

That is not turning it around.  Turning it around would be:

"You can't convince a non-believer of anything; for their non-belief is not based on the total lack of evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to not-believe."

If you seriously thought you simply "turned it around" you have some bad wiring in your head somewhere.

Take Care

You too.

[Eddie Schultz]

Can you prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ actually occurred? It seems to me that if a man came back from the dead that there would be more than one book about it.  I mean, seriously, he came back from the dead and the only book about it is the Bible?  

Fran can't even provide evidence that graves opened up and previously dead inhabitants of Jerusalem ended up milling about, let along Jesus Christ himself. Hell, she can't even give evidence that he even existed in the first place.

From reading Fran's profile, she is a he.

Anyway, here is the latest from my Christian brother.   The first paragraph is from me to him.

"I admitted that night, (as Dawkins has) that we don't know exactly how everything began. But you (as all Christian fundamentalist's are) are so sure that "god did it" is the only answer. I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter how much evidence I send you that the bible has been proven not to be accurate and without error, that there is no evidence for any god's existence, that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, that there is no credible evidence that a man named Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, was crucified to die for our sins, etc.... you still have a deep seated need to believe in a god, and if you do the research as many other ex Christians have, you'll still have that deep-seated need to believe."
 
"As I said before, there is eyewitness evidence of of the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus. Not only Christ followers but recorded by other nations, Romans, Egyptians, Jewish and others. All of who were not Christ friendly so they had no reason to intentionally further Christ' commission. Eyewitness evidence of the miracles performed and recorded by them and not only followers of Christ. Written documentation that would be admissible in court. Eyewitness accounts.
  
You can have faith in science as evidence but your faith may change just as science does. I can't convince you to believe anything other than that what you believe, even though what you believe is just a Theory/ Hypothesis.    
 
As I mentioned, If you don't believe what I believe, then surely don't believe what you have been believing, all because the name of Science (always changing). As you MUST KNOW Science is not the end all. Science has not answered many questions, just as SCIENCE hasn't answered the question "HOW did WE get HERE?. Remember Science once said that the earth was flat, and boy were some scientist who got their pride hurt when they had to admit that they were wrong. Foolish pride, I've been there, as most of us have.
  
You talk about books that were supposedly meant to be included in the bible, how do you know that?
If someone claimed that an article that they wrote is suppose to be included in the next TV Guide and this writer doesn't even work for TV Guide, should they be allowed to have it printed?, obviously not. Same deal, not just any text was allowed.
  
If you are communicating with one of the so called (ex-Christians) can you ask them where they stand on tough issues such as Killing babies, Homosexual marriage/ Sodomy and other liberal stances. Their answer will reveal if they were ever a true follower of Christ. (what he just said there is what he always says to me when I tell him of many Christians leaving the fold) The name or term Christian is more of a label anymore. Catholics and many Mormons call themselves Christians.
 
Please send me a list of all of the unbiased sources who prove that Jesus Christ never walked the earth."

There you have it. Anyone care to dissect it? I know, I know, it's pretty monotonous to do so all the time, but humor yourself.

BTW, I sent him a link to this thread, and invited him to register here to see if he'll join the discussion.

Thanks,
Eddie

[Fran]

But the fact is, it is logically impossible for an atheist to PROVE that God does not exist... just as it is equally true that it is logically impossible for a Christian to PROVE that God does exist...

Proof is for mathematics. However, I do have evidence that God does not exist. And that would be the fact that there is no evidence that God exists. For there to be no evidence that a being who is supposedly all powerful, all present, and all knowing exists, that is in and of itself evidence that such a being does not exist.

Hello subtleinspiration...

Absence of proof is not proof of absence is the logical rebuttal to the logical fallacy you've commited which is called lack of imagination. Your claim that a given thing (God in this instance)  cannot exist because it has never been detected is a fallacy because human beings cannot perceive all of the universe of things or ideas all of the time.

But another problem you have is your expectation of a particular kind of evidence that this God should exhibit to demonstrate His existence. That's an assumption on your part that is completely unsupported and unwarranted.

Take Care

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

Faith by definition is blind.  Faith requires belief without proof. 

Faith by definition IS NOT BLIND.  Read the definition in the dictionary again.  You can have faith in someone or some institution because your past and repeated observations of that person or institution has given you a firm opinion that you can trust in that person... that you can have faith in that person or institution... even though they may ultimately let you down at times.

Look up the word again.

faith
??/fe??/ Show Spelled [feyth] –noun
belief that is not based on proof

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence is the logical rebuttal to the logical fallacy you've commited

As my existence will attest to.  there is no proof at all that I, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, exist.  ("Invisible" is, after all, right there in my name.)  However, that doesn't mean I don't exist!

which is called lack of imagination.

Uhm.  "Lack of imagination" is a logical fallacy?  I don't think so. 

BUT, if "lack of imagination" is really an issue, then ask yourself this:  "Imagine you are wrong and there is no god.  Imagine that all the people who toild you to believe in god when you were being trained to view the world through 'god glasses' were also wrong."  Can you imagine how wasted your life will be? 

Your claim that a given thing (God in this instance)  cannot exist because it has never been detected is a fallacy because human beings cannot perceive all of the universe of things or ideas all of the time.

Anyone who claims that something can not exist because it has never been observed is obviously wrong.   

But another problem you have is your expectation of a particular kind of evidence that this God should exhibit to demonstrate His existence.

There is no expectation of evidence of God.  There is expectation that someone who wants people to do certain things (give churches tax breaks, allow prayer in public schools, refuse to teach sex education to children, etc) would explain WHY those things should be done using at LEAST a testable hypothesis.  If there is no detectable evidnce of God affect on our world, then his existence is a moot point.

That's an assumption on your part that is completely unsupported and unwarranted.

If anyone has an unwarranted assumption, it is someone who says, "Not only does god exist, but it is the god of the bible."  No evidence = assumption.

[Fran]

Uhm.  "Lack of imagination" is a logical fallacy?  I don't think so. 

Hello InvisiblePinkUnicorn...

You go to different logic books, and you get multiple names for the same kind of fallacies.  The "lack of imagination" fallacy I refered to is also known as "Argument from Ignorance" or "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam".   Which means that an appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.    A lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. 

This is my point and the fallacy (mistake) which subtleinspiration made in their post and to what i specifically responded to.

[PinkMilk]

It seems that your brother wants to discredit science because it doesn't have all the answers.  Scientists know that they and other scientists do not have all the answers.  Even if science could prove how the universe began, we'd still have questions science won't answer.  As life evolves and time passes there will be more questions that science seeks to answer.  The difference between people of science and religious people, is that people of science can admit they don't have an answer.  Religious people have no problem believing unsubstantiated claims that provide an answer to the question.  That's fine if you want to believe things without evidence. 
I notice he also brought up the term "theory/hypothesis" again.  A scientific theory is not the same as hypothesis and I think he fails to realize this.  A scientific theory is a well founded explanation based in evidence that tells how something happened/happens.  Gravity is a theory.  If he is so confident that it is just a theory, then why does he not jump off the roof of a building?  A hypothesis is an educated guess at the outcome of a scientific study.  It is not the same as a theory.  One is a prediction that is not based in evidence, and the other is the results of evidence and lots and lots of research, tests, and peer review.  It really really urks me personally when someone makes statements like that. It is blatant ignorance of what something means. 

As far as the books that were not included in versions of the Bible, it is not at all like someone saying that their work is going to be published in a magazine.  I hate to use wiki to provide information, but I am lazy today and do not feel like searching the internet for a better source, but wiki does have a good article about the books of the Bible as well as Biblical canon. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
I'd highly recommend that you actually read through those articles and perhaps even search for other information on the topic before you respond to your brother about this subject matter.  I hate it when theists cut and paste or simply link to a site (I personally think it shows ignorance of what you're talking about), but these will give you a great starting point at better understanding things and can lead you to sources to show him that his comment is ridiculous. 

As far as "really being a Christian", that is such a cliche argument that it is almost unbearable to hear it. His view on Christianity is the only true one, and he is so right that there is no way you could understand Christianity as it was meant to be understood and change your mind.  As far as topics such as abortion (I love how he used the wording "killing babies"), homosexuality/sodomy (as if sodomy doesn't exist without homosexuality), and as he says "other liberal stances" he is implying that it is impossible for an atheist to be against any of these things.  I personally know atheists who are against abortion and homosexuality.  What their opinions are now have nothing to do with what they previously believed.  If they still thought the way they did when they were a believer then chances are that they wouldn't be atheists.  However that doesn't mean that all atheists would come to the same conclusion on any of these topics, they may agree but for different reasons, or disagree but for different reasons. 

Lastly, as per his request of unbiased sources that Jesus Christ never walked the earth, there isn't any.  There isn't any evidence he didn't walk the earth, but I am not claiming he did.  If someone who was truly unbiased sought evidence of Jesus' existence came up empty handed, theists would argue that he was biased all along.  I ask your brother for proof (and not the Bible) that shows that Jesus walked the earth.  Show all these other documentations that claim he existed, was the son of God, performed miracles, and rose from the dead.  Is there a chance there was a person called Jesus then? Sure.  Does that mean anything? Without evidence, No.

[Fran]

Hello InvisiblePinkUnicorn...

As you and the others in here should all know... many words in the English language (and in other languages as well of course), have multiple DIFFERENT meanings.

For example, if I say the word "bat"... to what am I referring?  How about "fag"?   In other countries, "fag" can mean cigerattes.  etc etc.   This is part of the problem in trying to read the Bible when it was originally written in Hebrew and Greek.

So this is the same with the word "faith".

According to Dictionary.com, these are also the definition of the word "faith"... which are DIFFERENT and NOT the same at all:

-- confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.  Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

-- belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:

-- the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement.  Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance


-- That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion; especially (Theol.),

-- faith  c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid).

-- Main Entry: faith  Function: noun
1 a : allegiance or loyalty to a duty or a person b : sincerity or honesty of intentions —see also BAD FAITH, GOOD FAITH
2 : fidelity to one's promises and obligations

Now... in logic, the law of identity is absolute otherwise no one can understand what the person is saying.   So if you use a different meaning for a particular word (faith-bat-fag-etc) than another person is, then confusion and chaos will follow.

When the Bible uses the word "faith" (like Christians do) it is not talking about "blind" faith.  Indeed, the Bible TEACHES AND DEMANDS that we all TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!

God abhores Blind faith and teaches against it.  So when Christians and the Bible are talking about "faith", they are talking about trust.  But that trust is not blind.  It is based on evidence.  And that is the point.

Let's take a secular example because I know many in here become blind because of their emotions.  But does it not take faith whenever you step into an elevator?  Or when you get into another person's car? Or when we send our kids to school?  Or when we hire a babysitter?  etc.?  Of course it does.   No one has the time to test everything or everyone before they use something or use someone's services... so there is always a matter of "faith"... TRUST... in our everyday life.  But it's not BLIND faith.  It's NOT blind trust.  And that is my point.

Heck... even atheists have "faith" (trust) that tomorrow will exist by the evidence that they keep a bank account and pay their bills and make appointments and plans for the future, etc.

But it's not BLIND faith or BLIND trust.

See?

Take care

[subtleinspiration]

Anyone who claims that something can not exist because it has never been observed is obviously wrong.   

A lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. This is my point and the fallacy (mistake) which subtleinspiration made in their post and to what i specifically responded to.

On the contrary, for any "normal" thing (i.e. anything not a Deity), you would be correct. However, we are talking about a being who is all knowing, all powerful and who exists everywhere. Anything less than that is not a Deity, just an advanced being. But we're just arguing semantics here. We can say with 99.999999999% certainty that leprechauns do not exist. We can say with 99.999999999% certainty that Santa Claus does not exist. There is not any more evidence for those two creatures than there is for God, and yet no one makes the claim that Santa Claus is all knowing, all present, and all powerful. Nor does anyone attribute those qualities to leprechauns. And yet we accept that for a Deity and yet go along with the idea even there there is not one shred of evidence for it? My contention is that it is utterly illogical for such a being to exist without there being one shred of evidence for it.

To put it another way, let's make the assumption that I have gone on national television and claimed that there is a magical blue Fairy that lives in every single home in the world. You cannot prove me wrong by having an observer at every single home at the exact same time reporting that there is no blue Fairy, nor can you even prove that there is no blue Fairy living in your house either because you cannot occupy every square inch of it at the same time. Does this mean that the idea has merit? Of course not. Even you'd scoff at that one, Fran. Why? Because there is not one shred of evidence of a blue Fairy ever, and yet here I am claiming that there is one in every single home in the world and that, additionally, there have always been blue Fairies in homes since the beginning of time. Not only would you immediately draw the conclusion that I'm full of shit, but you'd be 99.9999999% certain that there are no blue Fairies living in your home, or anyone else's for that matter.

[subtleinspiration]

When the Bible uses the word "faith" (like Christians do) it is not talking about "blind" faith.  Indeed, the Bible TEACHES AND DEMANDS that we all TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!

It demands we test everything by the bible itself, which is circular reasoning.

Try again.

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

"As I said before, there is eyewitness evidence of of the life,

Citations please.

death

Citations please.

and Resurrection of Jesus.

A LOT of citations please.

Not only Christ followers but recorded by other nations, Romans, Egyptians, Jewish and others. All of who were not Christ friendly so they had no reason to intentionally further Christ' commission. Eyewitness evidence of the miracles performed and recorded by them and not only followers of Christ. Written documentation that would be admissible in court. Eyewitness accounts.

Citations please.

  

You can have faith in science as evidence but your faith may change just as science does.

What?

I can't convince you to believe anything other than that what you believe,

Wrong!  Wrong!  WRONG!   This is where the tehists are so blinded by their own belief that they think that everyone is just like them.  Unlike theists, I can provide a wide and long list of the types of things that would convince me to change my views on the God hypothesis.  Can a theist provide the same list?  No, because to do so would be a blasphemey because it would be admitting that there might not be a god and/or a holy spirit.  With science, you HOPE to be proven wrong or at least have your ideas clarified or improved eventually.
[/quote]

even though what you believe is just a Theory/ Hypothesis.

What do I believe?
   
 

As I mentioned, If you don't believe what I believe, then surely don't believe what you have been believing, all because the name of Science (always changing).

I don't understand this sentence.

As you MUST KNOW Science is not the end all.

Who said it was?

Science has not answered many questions, just as SCIENCE hasn't answered the question "HOW did WE get HERE?.

True.  Science has not answered many questions.  However, he seems to be saying "And since it can't answer all questions it is valueless."  What he fails to admit here is that science has answered almost infinitely more questions (taken as a percentage) than any religion ever has.

Remember Science once said that the earth was flat,

This is one of the most disingenuous arguments I have ever seen.   From my bloog at http://www.galileogallery.com/2009/03/galileo-gallery-launches.html:

On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become the current Pope, Benedict XVI), quoted the philosopher Paul Feyerabend as saying “The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.” He added, "It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views.”

Think about that for a second.

In the year 1990 – the year when the Hubble Space Telescope was launched aboard Space Shuttle Discovery – a highly-placed Cardinal who later become Pope 1) indicated that the Church’s actions against Galileo were “rational and just,” 2) seemed to think that it was a GOOD thing that the church considered not only the evidence of facts of heliocentrism but also “the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too,” and 3) said that it would be “foolish” to apologize for the church’s actions merely because it was “politically opportune” to do so.


Your brother's straw man argument is pathetic.  No scientist claims that science is 100% rigth all the time.  If it doidn't change and get updated all the time, something would be wrong.
  

and boy were some scientist who got their pride hurt when they had to admit that they were wrong.

As my above history shows, it was the SCIENTISTS who were PUT TO DEATH BY CHRISTIANS for claiming that the world was round and not the center of the universe.  Your brother either doesn't know history or is being intellectually dishonest for Jesus.

Foolish pride, I've been there, as most of us have.

It is obvious he has.

You talk about books that were supposedly meant to be included in the bible, how do you know that?
If someone claimed that an article that they wrote is suppose to be included in the next TV Guide and this writer doesn't even work for TV Guide, should they be allowed to have it printed?, obviously not. Same deal, not just any text was allowed.

So he approves of the system that the church used to detarmine which books should be in the bible?  Then he shoudl agree with the methods that they used to decide to kill millions of jews and witches during the same time?

If you are communicating with one of the so called (ex-Christians)

He speaks of pride and then says this as if anyoen whowas RALLY a Christian would never become non christian.  What a hypocritical asshole.

can you ask them where they stand on tough issues such as Killing babies, Homosexual marriage/ Sodomy and other liberal stances.

1) Atheists are not liberal as a rule.  I know many very conservative atheists.

2) My views on the issues he raised

a) Killing babies is bad.

b) Restricting the grant of state sponsored benefits on people because of the sexual orrientation is just as wrong as doing so because of the color fo their skin.

c) I have no opinion on sodomy other than to say I enjoy blow jobs.

Their answer will reveal if they were ever a true follower of Christ.

No, they won't.

The name or term Christian is more of a label anymore. Catholics and many Mormons call themselves Christians.

This is what cult members sound like when they are starting into that final phase when their leaders sarts culling the herd by identifying "flase" believers.  Next comes the compounds then the mass suicides.

 

Please send me a list of all of the unbiased sources who prove that Jesus Christ never walked the earth.

1) Why should bias have anything to do with proof.  If a bias source PROVES something (to whatever standard of evidence we are trying to acheive) , then it is PROVEN (to yhat extent).
2) I don't care if a guy named Jesus walked the earth and told everyone to be nice to each other.  I do care that he didn't perform miracles and he was not the son of a sky god.

There you have it. Anyone care to dissect it? I know, I know, it's pretty monotonous to do so all the time, but humor yourself.

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

Hello InvisiblePinkUnicorn...

As you and the others in here should all know... many words in the English language (and in other languages as well of course), have multiple DIFFERENT meanings.

For example, if I say the word "bat"... to what am I referring?  How about "fag"?   In other countries, "fag" can mean cigerattes.  etc etc.   This is part of the problem in trying to read the Bible when it was originally written in Hebrew and Greek.

So this is the same with the word "faith".

According to Dictionary.com, these are also the definition of the word "faith"... which are DIFFERENT and NOT the same at all:

-- confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.  Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

-- belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.:

-- the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement.  Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance


-- That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion; especially (Theol.),

-- faith  c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid).

-- Main Entry: faith  Function: noun
1 a : allegiance or loyalty to a duty or a person b : sincerity or honesty of intentions —see also BAD FAITH, GOOD FAITH
2 : fidelity to one's promises and obligations

Now... in logic, the law of identity is absolute otherwise no one can understand what the person is saying.   So if you use a different meaning for a particular word (faith-bat-fag-etc) than another person is, then confusion and chaos will follow.

When the Bible uses the word "faith" (like Christians do) it is not talking about "blind" faith.  Indeed, the Bible TEACHES AND DEMANDS that we all TEST EVERYTHING!!!!!

God abhores Blind faith and teaches against it.  So when Christians and the Bible are talking about "faith", they are talking about trust.  But that trust is not blind.  It is based on evidence.  And that is the point.

Let's take a secular example because I know many in here become blind because of their emotions.  But does it not take faith whenever you step into an elevator?  Or when you get into another person's car? Or when we send our kids to school?  Or when we hire a babysitter?  etc.?  Of course it does.   No one has the time to test everything or everyone before they use something or use someone's services... so there is always a matter of "faith"... TRUST... in our everyday life.  But it's not BLIND faith.  It's NOT blind trust.  And that is my point.

Heck... even atheists have "faith" (trust) that tomorrow will exist by the evidence that they keep a bank account and pay their bills and make appointments and plans for the future, etc.

But it's not BLIND faith or BLIND trust.

See?

Take care

OK.  Since you are not using faith is the "belief withour evidence" sense, please set your definitions, make a claim and let's chat about it.

[ksm]

Let's take a secular example because I know many in here become blind because of their emotions.  But does it not take faith whenever you step into an elevator?

No. In what way do I faith have in a elevator?

Or when you get into another person's car?

No. Why do I need faith for this?

Or when we send our kids to school?

No. Faith about what?

Or when we hire a babysitter?  etc.?  Of course it does.

No. No it doesn't.

No one has the time to test everything or everyone before they use something or use someone's services... so there is always a matter of "faith"... TRUST... in our everyday life.  But it's not BLIND faith.  It's NOT blind trust.  And that is my point.

You are mashing meanings together, and failing to be specific. I have a reasonable expectation that all these things you have mentioned won't harm me, because to date they haven't. In short I have evidence.

However, I am well aware that every action contains risk. Mitigate what risk you can, but don't be surprised if something goes wrong - because we all know that it happens. There is evidence that these bad things happen, and yet an enormous amount of of evidence that shows that for the vast majority of the time they do not.

This is in no way equivalent to your faith in a god that cannot be demonstrated to have any effect on the universe at all. Your belief in events that you think occurred merely because they are written in a specific book, but have little or no discernible evidence is blind faith.

Heck... even atheists have "faith" (trust) that tomorrow will exist by the evidence that they keep a bank account and pay their bills and make appointments and plans for the future, etc.

Why should I doubt that tomorrow will exist? I have ample evidence that tomorrow always follows today. I am well aware that I could die at any time rendering my future plans useless, however I have ample evidence that I will wake up tomorrow morning, alive and well just as I have every other day.

It makes no sense to stop planning ahead on the off chance the world (or me) might end tomorrow. That is most certainly NOT faith.

You definition of faith, and how you are equivocating to peoples actions is flawed.

But it's not BLIND faith or BLIND trust.

Yours is though. Where is your evidence for your god? Evidence that does not hinge on circular logic, or special pleadings or merely accepting unchallenged the accounts from a book of dubious origins?

[Fran]

Hello KSM...

No. In what way do I faith have in a elevator?

I'm using the dictionary definition (and how the Bible uses the term as well) for the word "faith" which is trust.  Why do you trust that the elevator will work and not plummet to the ground when you get in?

No. Why do I need faith for this?

Why do you trust the car's brakes work?  Or that it is not rigged with a terrorists bomb? Or that it won't malfunction in such a way that you could be harmed?

No. Faith about what?

Why do you trust that your kids will be safe in school?

No. No it doesn't

.
why do you trust the babysitter?

You are mashing meanings together, and failing to be specific. I have a reasonable expectation that all these things you have mentioned won't harm me, because to date they haven't. In short I have evidence.

I'm not mashing meanings together, but instead i'm using the dictionary definition for "faith"... which is trust.  And just like you have a reasonable expectation that all these things we have mentioned won't harm You, because to date they haven't, and so this is your evidence... so it is with my "faith" (trust) in God.   In short I have evidence, just like you do.  You and I are both using faith (trust) in our daily lives.

Why should I doubt that tomorrow will exist? I have ample evidence that tomorrow always follows today. I am well aware that I could die at any time rendering my future plans useless, however I have ample evidence that I will wake up tomorrow morning, alive and well just as I have every other day.

Exactly my point.  And in much the same way, I have ample evidence that God exists (thru Christ's resurrection).

Yours is though. Where is your evidence for your god? Evidence that does not hinge on circular logic, or special pleadings or merely accepting unchallenged the accounts from a book of dubious origins?

My faith and trust in God is based on evidence.  The evidence of Christ's resurrection.  No circular logic or special pleadings are being employed.  Just pure logic... as it was meant to be used.

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

I'm using the dictionary definition (and how the Bible uses the term as well) for the word "faith" which is trust.  Why do you trust that the elevator will work and not plummet to the ground when you get in?

Fran,

Take a break.  Come up for air.  Get real.

It is true that one definition of faith includes the word "trust" but 1) that is not the entire set of words in that definition - the word "confidence" is in there too, 2) it doesn't include words that indicate that the trust is based on evidence of any kind, 3) other definitions explicitly say that there is an absence of evidence, 4) the other definitions explicitly refer to religion while your definition specifically refers to "a person or a thing."

You are displaying a disturbing tendency I have noticed among both the religious and conservatives which is to try to redefine terms away from common usage to the point of making language meaningless.  You are either 1) incredibly uneducated or 2) willing to lie cheat and steal for Jesus.  Which is it?

[Fran]

I'm using the dictionary definition (and how the Bible uses the term as well) for the word "faith" which is trust.  Why do you trust that the elevator will work and not plummet to the ground when you get in?

Fran,

Take a break.  Come up for air.  Get real.

It is true that one definition of faith includes the word "trust" but 1) that is not the entire set of words in that definition - the word "confidence" is in there too, 2) it doesn't include words that indicate that the trust is based on evidence of any kind, 3) other definitions explicitly say that there is an absence of evidence, 4) the other definitions explicitly refer to religion while your definition specifically refers to "a person or a thing."

You are displaying a disturbing tendency I have noticed among both the religious and conservatives which is to try to redefine terms away from common usage to the point of making language meaningless.  You are either 1) incredibly uneducated or 2) willing to lie cheat and steal for Jesus.  Which is it?

1)... I already listed all the definitions the dictionary supplies for faith.  And most seem to be incorporate the concept of trust.  Confidence to me is very similiar to trust.  Why do you trust that the elevator will work?  Why do you have confidence that it will work?   You can have trust in the elevator because of your confidence, but why the confidence?   You can't say that you tested it before you got in (no one has the time to do this everytime)... so you put your confidence (and thus your trust) in other things.

So it is with faith and trust and confidence in God.

2)... Trust CAN BE BLIND... confidence CAN BE BLIND... faith CAN BE BLIND.  They all can be blind.  But they DON'T HAVE TO BE... and that is my point all along.  

3)... yes... and i'm not using those other definitions.  Many English words (as well as in other languages) have a habit of meaning different things.  It's just a fact in language.

4)...????  Some do refer specifically to religion.. and the others do not.  The others refer to people and things.

You are displaying a disturbing tendency I have noticed among both the religious and conservatives which is to try to redefine terms away from common usage to the point of making language meaningless.  You are either 1) incredibly uneducated or 2) willing to lie cheat and steal for Jesus.  Which is it?

You're joking right?  For me to take you seriously on this point... are you going to include the word marriage as well?  How about baby?

What are dictionaries for?  There is a lot of abuse about how words are used... but the law of identity says words have to have meaning... and so i used a dictionary to define my words.  I didnt make the definition up.   

But more importantly, I'm trying to be faithful the way the word was being used in the original language of the Bible.  It's like the term "slavery".  Today, the word meant something very different than the way it was being used in the Bible.  So it is with the word "perfect".   And the word "day".  Etc.

It is the Bible talking about "faith".. and so it should BE IN THAT CONTEXT we should understand the word.  Now tell me how this is unreasonable?

You are either 1) incredibly uneducated or 2) willing to lie cheat and steal for Jesus.  Which is it?

False dilemma

[subtleinspiration]

But more importantly, I'm trying to be faithful the way the word was being used in the original language of the Bible.  It's like the term "slavery".  Today, the word meant something very different than the way it was being used in the Bible.  So it is with the word "perfect".   And the word "day".  Etc.

You just spout all kinds of nonsense, don't you? I bet you can't even provide any evidence of this other than speculation.

[InvisiblePinkUnicorn]

It is the Bible talking about "faith".. and so it should BE IN THAT CONTEXT we should understand the word. 

OK.  Let's use your definition.  What is it?  Faith = A level of belief in a proposition when there is enough evidence to justify that level of belief you hold?

[tperl]

Fran - how do you not get lost amongst all that smoke and mirrors?

[ksm]

Hello KSM...

No. In what way do I faith have in a elevator?

I'm using the dictionary definition (and how the Bible uses the term as well) for the word "faith" which is trust.  Why do you trust that the elevator will work and not plummet to the ground when you get in?

I don't trust it not to happen. How often does it happen? Seldom? Do lifts have safety features? Yes? Have I ever been trapped in a malfunctioing lift? Yes!

Given that the number of lift fatalities around the world, given millions and millions of lift trips each year I have a great deal of evidence that lifts are reasonably safe.

That is not faith, the same way you have faith in an undetectable god.

No. Why do I need faith for this?

Why do you trust the car's brakes work?  Or that it is not rigged with a terrorists bomb? Or that it won't malfunction in such a way that you could be harmed?

I don't have faith. I have maintenance. I test my brakes when I drive. And I am fully aware every time I get in a car that I could die.

I have no faith that I won't be harmed.

No. Faith about what?

Why do you trust that your kids will be safe in school?

No. No it doesn't

.
why do you trust the babysitter?

Once again, I don't have faith that they could not be harmed. I realize that it could happen, but that I can only take so many precautions. So I take what precautions I can. Life is risk.

You are mashing meanings together, and failing to be specific. I have a reasonable expectation that all these things you have mentioned won't harm me, because to date they haven't. In short I have evidence.

I'm not mashing meanings together, but instead i'm using the dictionary definition for "faith"... which is trust.  And just like you have a reasonable expectation that all these things we have mentioned won't harm You, because to date they haven't, and so this is your evidence... so it is with my "faith" (trust) in God.   In short I have evidence, just like you do.  You and I are both using faith (trust) in our daily lives.

What evidence do you have of this unseen, unheard, unfelt god? I challenge you to provide it.

Why should I doubt that tomorrow will exist? I have ample evidence that tomorrow always follows today. I am well aware that I could die at any time rendering my future plans useless, however I have ample evidence that I will wake up tomorrow morning, alive and well just as I have every other day.

Exactly my point.  And in much the same way, I have ample evidence that God exists (thru Christ's resurrection).

Wait? you evidence of one magical thing, because of a supposed magical event, that you didn't witness, and only read about, in a book of dubious origin.

You have no evidence.

Yours is though. Where is your evidence for your god? Evidence that does not hinge on circular logic, or special pleadings or merely accepting unchallenged the accounts from a book of dubious origins?

My faith and trust in God is based on evidence.  The evidence of Christ's resurrection.  No circular logic or special pleadings are being employed.  Just pure logic... as it was meant to be used.

LOL.

You have no evidence of Christ's resurrection.

You are equivocating because your argument is based on circular logic and special pleadings.

[MrFriday]

I couldn't help but notice first of all, that Sagan makes absolutely no sense because a "believer" can be convinced of SOME THINGS.  For example, you can convince a "believer" that he is alive... or that the universe exists, etc, etc, etc.

Fran, you aren't being disingenuous are you? You expect us to believe you think Sagan was refering to convincing a believer of trivial facts? Why would anyone try to convince a believer that they were alive or the universe existed? The point of identifying a "believer" as the target of an argument implies that he means attempting to convince them of something counter to their belief. But you know that and you are just disparaging someone so you feel better about your unfounded assumptions.

Just thinking.

If only you would.