examples of faith from atheists

Here is a little sanity check. Fill in the blank here...

"It is 20 degrees Fahrenheit outside and there are four inches of snow on the ground. If my neighbor has not seen it outside today and says that they think it is 50 degrees and sunny out then __________."

A) It would be 'true for them' that it is 50 degrees outside

B) It is true that their opinion is that it is 50 degrees out but since the actual truth is that it is only 20 degrees their opinion is wrong because it does not match reality

The answer may suprise you... It's B.

And its likely that they cant be convinced otherwise

LMAO I reckon having them look out the window would do the trick.

But if it didn't what does that matter? If a person is wrong then a person is wrong... How is that a hard concept to understand?

 Well, some people are convinced that the earth is flat and no amount of evidence will change their mind. So, in their own mind, they are right.

So we agree now that it is possible to be wrong about things and that nothing can be 'true for one person and false for another'.

So, you were talking earlier about reasons someone might be wrong about something. What do you think I am wrong about?

Here is a definition of faith according Merriam-webster...

"something that is believed especially with strong conviction"

As a strong conviction can come from strong evidence, proof even, there is a type of faith that is reasonable to have.

It is because faith can be reasonable that to claim to be totally without faith would be an irrational position. It is very nihilistic.

.

Mopac,

Responding to your post #96,

Listen, we have to accept that having "faith" is not, I repeat, is not as convincing as having "absolutes!"  We do not have an absolute that Jesus as God of the universe existed in an absolute manner.  The hell bound Muslims say that their God Allah, who is the same God as our Jesus, exists in the same way that the Greeks say their God Zeus existed. Admit it, the existence of Jesus is spurious at best if one actually reads about the non bible writings about our Savior, and the lack thereof subsequent to His death.

The irony is our Hebrew God Yahweh/Jesus talked to his creation at all times within His JUDEO-Christian Bible. God said this, God said that, God intervene here and there, God walked in the Garden of Eden, God spoke to every important bible character who has a chapter within the Bible! The devastating part of this biblical axiom is that we have not, I repeat, have not heard from Him in the same manner as our Bible characters did.  That alone should bring pause to any Christian, therefore where Has He been in the last 2000 years!!!

.

You are not a Christian at all, Thomas. 

If you want to get an education on true Christianity, my witness is that The Orthodox Catholic Church is the authority. Find you a church that has services in English, and talk to the presbyter.

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

.

Mopac,

In my post #97, you forgot to address why Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, does not talk to his creation today, like He did in biblical times?

Do you have a position on this, or are you going to runway again?

.

I disagree with your assertion. Christ does speak to us today.

I will point once again to the words of Jesus, "Blessed are the pure in heart, they shall see God".

.

Mopac, 

No, no, no, no, our Hebrew serial killer Yahweh God does not speak to the pseudo-christian today like He verbally did within the biblical times! HELLO, anybody home today?

A few examples of many where our Hebrew serial killer Yahweh actually verbally spoke to His creation, that He does NOT do today, get it? Huh?  Don't speak in terms of your weak hearsay assertions, understood? When Yahweh does not speak to us today like He did within the Bible, then did He really ever exist? This disturbs my faith to the utmost!

ADAM – Genesis 2:16-17, “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” For a time, the Lord walked and spoke with Adam frequently, but these are the first words we have that tell what the Lord said to Adam.
CAIN – Genesis 4:6, “And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?” When Abel’s offering to the Lord was accepted, Cain became very angry that his offering was not accepted. In great love, the Lord came to Cain and tried to get him to see that he could be accepted with the proper sacrifice.
NOAH – Genesis 6:12-13, “And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” The Lord begins to show Noah His plans to flood the earth because of the great sins of man.

To me, it seems dubious to label things which are not (well) explained by science as "miracles". That is a god of the gaps argument...or is it 'miracle of the gaps'? Also, assuming atheists have "faith" in these things...so what? I mean what's the point? Is it 'atheist are just as irrational as believers"? I don't think that strengthens the pro-belief view like you might imagine. 😂

No many people have contrary beliefs to another and both think they are right. And if you are wrong about something I don't know..., do you think you are wrong about anything.

If two people disagree and one is wrong then the person that is wrong is wrong.

If two people disagree and both are wrong then both are wrong.

I have a hypothesis that you may simply be grossly misusing the English language. Please allow me to test this hypothesis by reading the following question very carefully and answering with a simple "yes" or "no".

Do you think that the two statements below are saying the same thing?:

1) In Bobs opinion it is raining outside and in Claire's opinion it is not raining outside.

2) It is true for Bob that it is raining outside and it is true for Claire that it is not raining outside.

yes and most people believe their opinions are true even though they may be false.Did Hitler think it was right to kill 8 million plus,and did Stalin think it was right to kill that many before breakfast?

Okay so you are just misusing the English language. That explains it.

Elaborate

The English language is there to be used and if it is used in what is appreciably a reasonably logical format, then anything that is constructed as such is therefore applicable.

From where do you assume the authority to decide otherwise?

Therefore the phrase "This thing is true for one person and not another" is the same as the phrase "Reality is subjective".

Assuming we accept that reality is objective then any subjective opinion (ex. 'the color blue is pretty cool or 'dogs are better than cats') cannot be true or false. Any objective opinion (ex. 'it is raining outside' or 'god exists') by definition must be true or false.

This is how words work.

The semantics of the word does not take anything away from the fact that many people,be it Hitler,Stalin ,Pol Pot, Jim Jones or any other person decides for themselves what is right or wrong in their own minds.This is very clearly seen very often in our dealings with people who may see reality quite differently than others. 

You're the one saying that the idea that genocide is justified matches with reality, not me.

And your the one totally misrepresenting what i'm saying to avoid addressing the issue.

What is the issue you wish addressed?

Well,if you go back and read the earlier posts,it might refresh your memory.