non-zero only in the same sense that quantum mechanics says there is a non-zero possiblity that monkeys will fly out of my ass. the possiblity that christianity isn't based in mythology is close enough to zero to be effectively zero.

no i'm saying a god that can't be differentiated from myth/delusion is irrelevant, and spending your time considering the possiblity or worrying about such a god in terms of pascal's wager is just philosophically whacking off.


maybe not but you're using their arguments to make the same points. the only difference is you're doing it hypothetically rather than actually.

None of this really tells me how to get faith or what faith even is with 0 evidence. It just tells me why you say i don't have it. Which is i dont pursue honest truth and i and im just trying to win arguments and too look smart. Both of which are wrong imho.

And you're arguing against an atheists im not. I have no problem with the answers to universes being illogical or with faith with 0 evidence actually being something i could get.

What does faith mean to you? To me it means belief without evidence, or with insufficient evidence, and I see this as a form of willful irrationality. There are other senses of the term, like you might have faith that a friend will come through for you, but that would be based on a judgment of the friend's character from previous experience, and is not irrational. But faith in the theological sense always seemed like a worthless concept to me (or at least as soon as I started thinking about it), basically just making a decision to throw logic out the window and have a groundless belief.

You seem to think religious faith has some positive value. Why? (To be clear, I'm not saying that religious belief should require absolute certainty, just that the same weighing of evidence should take place when evaluating religious beliefs as when we evaluate anything else. Where faith is invoked, it strikes me as special pleading to change the rules where religion is concerned, and I see no good justification for this.)

Christ made it clear faith was required to perform most of what He did.

The disciples knew God existed, but did not have enough faith to do certain things.

If Christ was performing miracles on a regular basis, I don't see why the disciples would need faith at all. They would have had solid evidence. But maybe the term "faith" means something totally different to you in which case, please explain.

Knowledge is not equivalent to faith. Faith can grown with knowledge, but they are not equal.

Matthew 8:23–27 might give you a clearer picture.

Based on the premise that the disciples knew Jesus to be the son of God, and that he had supernatural powers, they should have had faith in his ability to calm the storm in his sleep. But that's not irrational, it's based on their understanding of who Jesus is and what he can do. Unless they'd never met the guy before and didn't know anything about him. But if they knew who he was and what he could do, I'd just call it "knowing Jesus". They needed to get to know him better maybe, then they would have been more calm.

If faith is based on understanding who God is (for believers, obviously) then that's not irrational from a believer's standpoint. Having faith that God can handle whatever situation you find yourself in - given that you believe God exists and is all-powerful and is looking out for you, that's perfectly rational. But I also hear the term used in a different sense, as in "you may not have evidence that God exists, so you should rely on faith". And faith in that sense just looks like irrational nonsense to me.

The bible never defines "faith" as belief without evidence. That is a recent concept. In fact, it speaks directly against that definition.

Hmm, I'm seeing two very different uses of the term here. The first one (which Jib says isn't biblical) is the concept of blind faith - belief without evidence. Which I reject as irrational and useless. The second one would only apply to believers, as in "have faith that God will give you the strength to deal with <situation>". Which seems reasonable given the premise that you already believe God exists and that he's all-powerful. Basically the same concept as having faith in a friend to act in a certain way, except applied to God.

that's debatable.

They did have faith in Jesus, that is why they woke Him up. But Jesus was saying that they had little faith as in they should of not been worried or they should of rebuked the storm themselves.

Everyone has faith. Some more then others. And i don't see what is stopping people from transferring that faith over to God so He can show you what He would like you to see. There is definitely evidence out there, but until someone believes God exists, they just don't see the evidence.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
- Philip K. Dick

"I'm in love with a stripper"- T-Pain

Yes, about the nature of existence. The Bible asserts that most people go to Hell. That's where I draw my conclusions from. Of course the Bible itself doesn't admit that It's own proposed existence is unjust and cruel, and I didn't actually say it did. So your next statements are all straw men. I'll respond where pertinent, though.


The only thing that gets you into Heaven is the worship/begging part. It's the only real definitive goal of being a Christian. The rest has no bearing on whether you get into Heaven.


You're actually wrong, it says an "eternity". There's a huge difference.

If it were a lifetime, or some limited time scale, it might be even be arguably just to send some people to Hell. But since the Bible actually says an eternity, that makes it something no person could possibly deserve, and It's invariably unjust.

With that said, I'd like to note that you completely ignored my argument about judging gods and that I won on that point. It's fitting.

Didn't say it was proof.

Actually, you never "asked me to specify". Prick. You only said "I find that hard to believe". I would have specified that there's super-string theory/M-theory as the best model for what likely created the universe.


This conflicts with your proceeding statement that "It's possible that something could have always existed". That something that could have always existed in this case would be natural forces of some kind. So you see, you're attacking a straw man by saying that science claims that "something came from nothing".

As to the question of why one might favor natural explanations...Well we know for sure the natural world exists and we can observe, measure, and test it. You can't say the same about God.

The way evidence works is, first you see the evidence for X, and then once you have seen enough evidence you start to believe X. Further evidence after you already believe may strengthen your conviction, but if you get to the belief stage without any evidence, the reasoning process has gone haywire and you'll be just as likely to pick false beliefs as true ones. "Believe first, you won't be able to see the evidence until you do" is something a con-man would say. I wouldn't trust the kind of "evidence" that can only be seen by believers. If there was real evidence, non-believers could see it too. Hence:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
- Philip K. Dick

x 100

But of course, belief without evidence is how most people arrive at a religion. Usually as children, who will believe whatever their parents tell them (you might say they have faith in their parents). Usually that faith is well placed, as parents generally have the child's best interests in mind and won't want to give them false beliefs. Children have no experience in the world and their minds aren't fully developed, so taking the "faith in mommy and daddy" shortcut is necessary (and evolutionarily adaptive - it makes them more likely to survive into adulthood). But religion definitely exploits this information pathway. As adults, we shouldn't seek to emulate the faith of a child, we're able to reason now.

Are you able to reason perfectly in all situations all the time?

Can reason regenerate your spirit?

What's more reliable: reason or perception? And why?

While you're at it explain why obtaining innocence or maintaining it is a bad thing.

This post is strictly for EvilSteve. I have more confidence in his integrity than most atheists posting on here so I want to hear his response not someone else's attempt to avoid burden of proof by dodging the question by raising a different question. I have confidence EvilSteve will answer without the dodge because as much as is humanly possible he possesses a certain degree of integrity (of course I base this on my observation of things he has said in this forum.)

Im not sure i would call believing what your parents say is based on faith alone either. Its kind of believing based on the evidence your parents believe.

Of course not.

I don't know what you mean by spirit. I suspect it's something you believe in that I don't. I'll go with "no", that's not something I expect reason to accomplish.

I take perception to mean sensory information (what we see, what we hear, etc). I generally accept this information as accurate but I realize I'm capable of being fooled. I've been taken in by optical illusions, or thought I heard a voice in the distance when in fact nobody was speaking, etc. I've even thought I was awake when I was actually dreaming, and in that case all the sensory information I thought I was getting was an illusion.

And with reason I can make logical errors, be influenced by psychological biases, forget some of the relevant facts that I ought to know, etc. I feel like I'm capable of generally accurate reasoning as long as I'm calm, well rested, and have enough time that I don't feel rushed.

I don't see how to compare the reliability of reasoning and perception. Both are useful/necessary. Both have limitations. They apply to entirely different domains, so even if one was declared more reliable than the other, that understanding wouldn't help me. I couldn't substitute the reliable one for the unreliable one. Both are necessary.

The child has "the faith of a child" due to the child's limitations. They're inexperienced and their brains aren't fully developed, so they need to just trust what their parents tell them on a lot of issues, because they aren't yet capable of judging for themselves. As they get older, they can (and do) throw away the crutch of childlike faith. They start asking more and more questions. After a while they won't automatically buy whatever mom and dad are selling. They develop their own minds and want to use them independently as soon as they're able.

Reverting to childlike faith is just that, a reversion. As adults we can reason for ourselves and I think we'd be very foolish not to. This doesn't mean we shouldn't listen to what we're told, just that we should listen critically and evaluate it for ourselves, instead of passively accepting it as a small child would. I think it's pretty telling that Christianity promotes "having the faith of a child" as a virtue. Critical thinking is discouraged.

But how does the child know their parents are a reliable authority? They don't know (in fact some parents turn out to be highly unreliable). So this really does seem like pure faith to me, blind faith even.

But that's your physical senses and comparisons tricking you.

Read the scriptures. We are not reborn spiritually as adults. Physically we could be an adult when we first believe but not spiritually. We have to feed on the Word to get our full growth. We need to be like innocent children initially. Later on we graduate to wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove but during all these stages we are led by the Spirit.

Don't you see any advantages to growing your new spiritual man from a pure source then maintaining it. We don't maintain it all on our own we need lots of help from above.

If you read the book of Ephesians you will see Paul's two prayers requesting help to develop his inner spiritual man.

I can see what you're saying. But it still seems like a child even if he accepts what his parents say blindly is still getting knowledge (evidence) form those words. Its just the child has no counter knowledge yet not to accept what was is being given to him. Maybe is more like blindly accepting knowledge or evidence on faith that your parents are right. Idk i would have to think more about this so your probably right.

I can accept that my physical senses may trick me and my reasoning may fall short. But these are the only available tools, so I work with them. Perfect perception and infallible reasoning aren't options for me, or for anyone.

If you ever want to seriously examine your beliefs (I don't think you do though), ask yourself why the first step to belief is presented this way. The obvious answer is that children are gullible, they'll believe anything. This is a cheap charlatan's trick. First, turn off your mind and believe like a child (the charlatan knows their mark will make up the justifications for their belief later - perhaps as a psychological defense against the embarrassment of having been so easily taken in).

This message is only effective when it is preached to the choir. As an unbeliever, I have no desire to grow the "new spiritual man". It just sounds like nonsense to me.

Let's agree to disagree then. People rarely fool me and its obvious Jesus is the spiritually smartest man to ever walk the Earth. The way he put the Pharisees in their places and his Sermon on the Mount is otherworldly. Its easy to follow him when your perceptions arrive at that conclusion. Besides on top of it all his actions are totally selfless.