Faith, does it exist?

[Carnifex]

While reading a christian forum i was musing with myself over the existance of faith.

If we check google, faith is defined as

"religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"

Other definitions being similar then we can see that faith itself does exist. I feel however that the word is used incorrectly throughout the world. Most Christians use faith as superior step to belief, and admirable leap to ones religiou choosing. So when we hear "You need faith to believe in God" under its actual definition we are told "you need a belief in God to believe in God".

So I firstly invite people to give their own account on faith and perhaps their own definition, and if it is differing in any way from just religious belief then please justify its existance in some way. I subscribe to the notion that what we believe is not under our control, we cannot make the conscious choice to believe something and this idea is often used when concerning Pascal's wager. I would like anyone to argue that we can make a conscious choice over what we believe.

I'l being and give my own definition of faith. I tihnk that faith and belief differ in the sense that faith implies that there is little evidence to actually support the assertions you make. So i define it as : The glorified act of accepting a certain belief with or without evidence to support it. I assume this must be different than the christian view of faith, because my definition is in now way a good thing.

Carn

[Fallen Hero]

Faith = belief in something with no reasons to have that belief
Belief = to consider something real or true.

[Nameless]

Faith = belief in something with no reasons to have that belief
Belief = to consider something real or true.

Faith is believing something without PROOF of it. There may still be strong reasons to believe something (not in the case of religion, IMO), just not enough to be 100% sure. You might have faith that a partner is not cheating on you, for example, but although you may have evidence it is not enough to be proof, yet you still believe them. This is not always a bad thing - complete proof can be hard to come by for some things - but it's the use of faith in situations where minimal evidence is present that is often negatively viewed in religious scenarios.
Belief is to accept and 'know' something to be, whether it actually is or not (eg. every single Christian)

[Fallen Hero]

Faith = belief in something with no reasons to have that belief
Belief = to consider something real or true.

Faith is believing something without PROOF of it. There may still be strong reasons to believe something (not in the case of religion, IMO), just not enough to be 100% sure. You might have faith that a partner is not cheating on you, for example, but although you may have evidence it is not enough to be proof, yet you still believe them. This is not always a bad thing - complete proof can be hard to come by for some things - but it's the use of faith in situations where minimal evidence is present that is often negatively viewed in religious scenarios.
Belief is to accept and 'know' something to be, whether it actually is or not (eg. every single Christian)

Ahem. That was what I meant.

[SAVAGE]

Here is a patented, royalty free Savage quote for your use:

Faith exists, doG exists. If only in the fantasies of the deluded.

[disciple]

Faith = Empirical evidence; as in: 100,000,000 christ Ians say it is so.
Belief = Actual evidence from more than one creditable source; as in: Not the bible.
Therefore if one removes belief from the equation, the christ Ians are right there can be a god, but only one, as they have no faith in other peoples version of the same story.
Following this theory; to retain belief, without faith, credible evidence is required
Shown as a (3rd grade) mathematical equation
1 faith - 0 belief = god,
1 belief - 1 faith = enlightenment
0 faith + 0 belief = 0 god

[Anonymous]

Faith, does it exist?
Carn

Yes, all Atheists as well as anyone with religious beliefs has faith. The Atheist has to have faith that God does not exist because he/she cannot prove that God deos not exist, so therefore it is a religion unto itself, a faith of unbelief.

Welcome to Religion 101.

Cheers
MrSmee

[SirRuben]

Faith, does it exist?
Carn

Yes, all Atheists as well as anyone with religious beliefs has faith. The Atheist has to have faith that God does not exist because he/she cannot prove that God deos not exist, so therefore it is a religion unto itself, a faith of unbelief.

Welcome to Religion 101.

Cheers
MrSmee
Could you please remove that ugly sheethead avatar of yours?

[Anonymous]

Could you please remove that ugly sheethead avatar of yours?

Why does it bother you? I couldn't find one of MoHammed.

[Fallen Hero]

Faith, does it exist?
Carn

Yes, all Atheists as well as anyone with religious beliefs has faith. The Atheist has to have faith that God does not exist because he/she cannot prove that God deos not exist, so therefore it is a religion unto itself, a faith of unbelief.

Welcome to Religion 101.

Cheers
MrSmee

Hmmm. I think that sounds right. That makes the difference between Atheists and Thesists more about interpretation and opinion on science.

[MeTHoD-X]

Faith, does it exist?
Carn

Yes, all Atheists as well as anyone with religious beliefs has faith. The Atheist has to have faith that God does not exist because he/she cannot prove that God deos not exist, so therefore it is a religion unto itself, a faith of unbelief.

Welcome to Religion 101.

Cheers
MrSmee

I can see where your coming from. However, atheism is no more a faith than me not believing in pink invisible unicorns requires faith. That's the way I look at it anyway.

[Anonymous]

Faith, does it exist?
Carn

Yes, all Atheists as well as anyone with religious beliefs has faith. The Atheist has to have faith that God does not exist because he/she cannot prove that God deos not exist, so therefore it is a religion unto itself, a faith of unbelief.

Welcome to Religion 101.

Cheers
MrSmee

I can see where your coming from. However, atheism is no more a faith than me not believing in pink invisible unicorns requires faith. That's the way I look at it anyway.

Interesting opinion but nothing more than that...an opinion. It still does not provide anything other than it is a faith that one stands on.

MrSmee

[SirRuben]

Could you please remove that ugly sheethead avatar of yours?

Why does it bother you? I couldn't find one of MoHammed.Take a wild guess..

Here's mohammad:
http://isaacschrodinger.typepad.com/isaacschrodinger/images/muhammed.jpg

[Carnifex]

Faith, does it exist?
Carn

Yes, all Atheists as well as anyone with religious beliefs has faith. The Atheist has to have faith that God does not exist because he/she cannot prove that God deos not exist, so therefore it is a religion unto itself, a faith of unbelief.

Welcome to Religion 101.

Cheers
MrSmee

I can see where your coming from. However, atheism is no more a faith than me not believing in pink invisible unicorns requires faith. That's the way I look at it anyway.

Interesting opinion but nothing more than that...an opinion. It still does not provide anything other than it is a faith that one stands on.

MrSmee

Well atheism is not really making a positive claim, it is merely the denial of a claim that requires faith.

[Jillamanda]

You don't need faith to NOT believe in something. That's just plain ridiculous. However, you DO need faith to believe something unseen and unproven. As an atheist, all I require is knowledge that there is no god, that's not faith. Also, it's not something I have to work on. It's just there. I don't have to read books about it, or gather with others to practice my non belief and I'm not required to have faith to maintain my non belief either.

People who have 'faith' (in the religious sense) have no idea about atheism. They compare it to all the god driven religions and it's not comparable. It's not a religion, it's more like the 'default' state. I believe we're all born atheists, and most of us get hard wired into some religion shortly afterwards, depending where we're born.

[Carnifex]

Amen jillamanda.

They make the mistake of mixing up believing there is no god, and having a lack of belief that a god exists.

[Jillamanda]

Exactly!!....and they're two very different things.

[Anonymous]

Faith, does it exist?
Carn

Yes, all Atheists as well as anyone with religious beliefs has faith. The Atheist has to have faith that God does not exist because he/she cannot prove that God deos not exist, so therefore it is a religion unto itself, a faith of unbelief.

Welcome to Religion 101.

Cheers
MrSmee

I can see where your coming from. However, atheism is no more a faith than me not believing in pink invisible unicorns requires faith. That's the way I look at it anyway.

Interesting opinion but nothing more than that...an opinion. It still does not provide anything other than it is a faith that one stands on.

MrSmee


Well atheism is not really making a positive claim, it is merely the denial of a claim that requires faith.

To which that claim requires faith to support that denial....lol

This site is no different than the morons who debate Evolution vs Creation...its a constant stream of circular reasoning which is the fuel required to support the argument.

Basically you should have called this site the "Church of Ad hominem Debate" not the church of Google ROFLMAO!

Peace
MrSmee

[Anonymous]

You don't need faith to NOT believe in something.

Absolutely you do...Atheism cannot demonstrate the "non-existence" of a deity....in as much as one requires faith in God and cannot prove His existence, neither can the Atheist disprove His existence, and is therefore relying exclusively on faith that He does not exist. In order to prove that He doesn't exist, one would have to have the absolute and complete knowldge of the entire intricate workings of the universe, therefore Atheism is founded on Faith.

I never met Alexander the Great but I have faith he existed because the History books tell me so...but there are those who don't believe he existed because they cannot trust the History books because they are fallable due in fact that they are written by man. (sound familiar?) the account of Alexander the Great is based on Witness accounts...lol

Smee

[Nameless]

You don't need faith to NOT believe in something.

Absolutely you do...Atheism cannot demonstrate the "non-existence" of a deity....in as much as one requires faith in God and cannot prove His existence, neither can the Atheist disprove His existence, and is therefore relying exclusively on faith that He does not exist. In order to prove that He doesn't exist, one would have to have the absolute and complete knowldge of the entire intricate workings of the universe, therefore Atheism is founded on Faith.

I never met Alexander the Great but I have faith he existed because the History books tell me so...but there are those who don't believe he existed because they cannot trust the History books because they are fallable due in fact that they are written by man. (sound familiar?) the account of Alexander the Great is based on Witness accounts...lol

Smee

Athiesm does not NEED to demonstrate the non-existance of a deity. As Method pointed out, you might as well claim we have faith in an inifinte number of things that do not exist. I have faith the sun is not a pizza. I have faith my laptop is not an elephant in diguise. I have faith my computer mouse is not going to bite me. that's not faith - that's logic. Logic is not faith, because logic relies on evidence and reasoning rather than blind belief. Not believing in a god is LOGIC, not faith.

[AaronD]

You don't need faith to NOT believe in something.

Absolutely you do...Atheism cannot demonstrate the "non-existence" of a deity....in as much as one requires faith in God and cannot prove His existence, neither can the Atheist disprove His existence, and is therefore relying exclusively on faith that He does not exist. In order to prove that He doesn't exist, one would have to have the absolute and complete knowldge of the entire intricate workings of the universe, therefore Atheism is founded on Faith.

I never met Alexander the Great but I have faith he existed because the History books tell me so...but there are those who don't believe he existed because they cannot trust the History books because they are fallable due in fact that they are written by man. (sound familiar?) the account of Alexander the Great is based on Witness accounts...lol


I believe that you are getting the meaning of faith completely mixed up. Let me address all of your points, and how it is you that is using circular reasoning, not us. For this, I will be using a definition search on Google. I feel that using Google to denounce your claims would be very appropriate in this situation.



a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
an institution to express belief in a divine power
Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.
Belief without evidence
Strong belief in something without proof or evidence



I believe that addresses all of your false claims about the meaning of faith. Now, to tackle all of your points individually. I will start with your paragraph on Athiesm.


You don't need faith to NOT believe in something.

Absolutely you do...Atheism cannot demonstrate the "non-existence" of a deity....


The beauty of not believing in a deity is that there is no need to demonstrate said deity's non-existence. What you are using right now can be referred to as circular logic, the exact thing you were accusing us of using. Your entire argument thus far has relied completely on some un-based belief that there is a deity, and in order not to believe in it, you must first disprove said deity's existence. The reason Athiests exist is because there is no actual proof that a deity does exist, and faith alone is not enough of a reason to believe in one. There is no valid counterpoint to my argument, and I know you will most likely re-iterate what you have said already, but I feel the definition pretty much resolves that.


in as much as one requires faith in God and cannot prove His existence, neither can the Atheist disprove His existence, and is therefore relying exclusively on faith that He does not exist. In order to prove that He doesn't exist, one would have to have the absolute and complete knowldge of the entire intricate workings of the universe, therefore Atheism is founded on Faith.


Atheism does not require proof of God's non-existence, as logic alone could cover that. And that, in fact, is exactly what Atheism is based on: logic. Logic clearly demonstrates that there is no God, and that a deity could not logically exist. Logic is, and never will be, founded on faith, which means that Atheism, by association, is not either.


I never met Alexander the Great but I have faith he existed because the History books tell me so...but there are those who don't believe he existed because they cannot trust the History books because they are fallable due in fact that they are written by man. (sound familiar?) the account of Alexander the Great is based on Witness accounts...lol


That is not faith, it is knowledge. The events of history, although recorded by man, and therefore fallible, are very reliable due to the fact that they have been proven through archeological evidence. There is no archeological (or any other kind of logical) evidence that a deity exists, so the existence of a deity relies completely on faith. Yes, history has been embellished a little, as history is written by the winners, but archeological evidence is evidence nonetheless, and can absolutely be trusted. You are comparing two completely unrelated things here (ie something that cannot be proven, and something that already has), so no, your argument about history being fallible because it was recorded by men does not sound familiar.


To which that claim requires faith to support that denial....lol

This site is no different than the morons who debate Evolution vs Creation...its a constant stream of circular reasoning which is the fuel required to support the argument.

Basically you should have called this site the "Church of Ad hominem Debate" not the church of Google ROFLMAO!

Once again, you are confusing logic and reason with faith, which is belief that goes against all logic and reason. The only "stream of circular reason which is the feul required to support the argument" is the stream you are tapping into.

Q.E.D.

[Fallen Hero]

Ok, I actually thought about this a little, perhaps you are both pushing the same point in different ways. You say it requires faith to beleive in nothing,

FAITH IN NOTHING = NO FAITH

That is what I gather from it.

[AaronD]

Ok, I actually thought about this a little, perhaps you are both pushing the same point in different ways. You say it requires faith to beleive in nothing,

FAITH IN NOTHING = NO FAITH

That is what I gather from it.

The incorrectness of that statement is the fundamental flaw of this entire argument (see my post above)

[Fallen Hero]

Ya ya ya, I know that is not what (s)he meant, I was twisting their words a little for some morning fun.

[Anonymous]

You don't need faith to NOT believe in something.

Absolutely you do...Atheism cannot demonstrate the "non-existence" of a deity....in as much as one requires faith in God and cannot prove His existence, neither can the Atheist disprove His existence, and is therefore relying exclusively on faith that He does not exist. In order to prove that He doesn't exist, one would have to have the absolute and complete knowldge of the entire intricate workings of the universe, therefore Atheism is founded on Faith.

I never met Alexander the Great but I have faith he existed because the History books tell me so...but there are those who don't believe he existed because they cannot trust the History books because they are fallable due in fact that they are written by man. (sound familiar?) the account of Alexander the Great is based on Witness accounts...lol

Smee

Athiesm does not NEED to demonstrate the non-existance of a deity. As Method pointed out, you might as well claim we have faith in an inifinte number of things that do not exist. I have faith the sun is not a pizza. I have faith my laptop is not an elephant in diguise. I have faith my computer mouse is not going to bite me. that's not faith - that's logic. Logic is not faith, because logic relies on evidence and reasoning rather than blind belief. Not believing in a god is LOGIC, not faith.

Again an interesting opinion but a perfect example of someone defending their faith. Even if I was an agnostic, believing that there is some form of creator regardless of any form of religion on earth, you would still be required to defend your position that there is no God.

It is a fact that we are here, there is no basis or fact to prove or disprove the origins to which answers the question of mankind existences, you there by perfect reasoning must defend your position of faith that there is no God or Creator because it is a belief system that you adhere to and thus as in your post you are defending the position, therefore you are defending your faith because

A: You cannot deny our existence

and

B: You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a deity

It is your belief that we are here by a natural process to which you cannot answer the question as to how did the natural process begin?

Deny or defend your position all you like...it is a belief system.

:twisted:

Smee

[Anonymous]

You don't need faith to NOT believe in something.

Absolutely you do...Atheism cannot demonstrate the "non-existence" of a deity....in as much as one requires faith in God and cannot prove His existence, neither can the Atheist disprove His existence, and is therefore relying exclusively on faith that He does not exist. In order to prove that He doesn't exist, one would have to have the absolute and complete knowldge of the entire intricate workings of the universe, therefore Atheism is founded on Faith.

I never met Alexander the Great but I have faith he existed because the History books tell me so...but there are those who don't believe he existed because they cannot trust the History books because they are fallable due in fact that they are written by man. (sound familiar?) the account of Alexander the Great is based on Witness accounts...lol


I believe that you are getting the meaning of faith completely mixed up. Let me address all of your points, and how it is you that is using circular reasoning, not us. For this, I will be using a definition search on Google. I feel that using Google to denounce your claims would be very appropriate in this situation.



a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
an institution to express belief in a divine power
Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.
Belief without evidence
Strong belief in something without proof or evidence



I believe that addresses all of your false claims about the meaning of faith. Now, to tackle all of your points individually. I will start with your paragraph on Athiesm.


You don't need faith to NOT believe in something.

Absolutely you do...Atheism cannot demonstrate the "non-existence" of a deity....


The beauty of not believing in a deity is that there is no need to demonstrate said deity's non-existence. What you are using right now can be referred to as circular logic, the exact thing you were accusing us of using. Your entire argument thus far has relied completely on some un-based belief that there is a deity, and in order not to believe in it, you must first disprove said deity's existence. The reason Athiests exist is because there is no actual proof that a deity does exist, and faith alone is not enough of a reason to believe in one. There is no valid counterpoint to my argument, and I know you will most likely re-iterate what you have said already, but I feel the definition pretty much resolves that.


in as much as one requires faith in God and cannot prove His existence, neither can the Atheist disprove His existence, and is therefore relying exclusively on faith that He does not exist. In order to prove that He doesn't exist, one would have to have the absolute and complete knowldge of the entire intricate workings of the universe, therefore Atheism is founded on Faith.


Atheism does not require proof of God's non-existence, as logic alone could cover that. And that, in fact, is exactly what Atheism is based on: logic. Logic clearly demonstrates that there is no God, and that a deity could not logically exist. Logic is, and never will be, founded on faith, which means that Atheism, by association, is not either.


I never met Alexander the Great but I have faith he existed because the History books tell me so...but there are those who don't believe he existed because they cannot trust the History books because they are fallable due in fact that they are written by man. (sound familiar?) the account of Alexander the Great is based on Witness accounts...lol


That is not faith, it is knowledge. The events of history, although recorded by man, and therefore fallible, are very reliable due to the fact that they have been proven through archeological evidence. There is no archeological (or any other kind of logical) evidence that a deity exists, so the existence of a deity relies completely on faith. Yes, history has been embellished a little, as history is written by the winners, but archeological evidence is evidence nonetheless, and can absolutely be trusted. You are comparing two completely unrelated things here (ie something that cannot be proven, and something that already has), so no, your argument about history being fallible because it was recorded by men does not sound familiar.


To which that claim requires faith to support that denial....lol

This site is no different than the morons who debate Evolution vs Creation...its a constant stream of circular reasoning which is the fuel required to support the argument.

Basically you should have called this site the "Church of Ad hominem Debate" not the church of Google ROFLMAO!

Once again, you are confusing logic and reason with faith, which is belief that goes against all logic and reason. The only "stream of circular reason which is the feul required to support the argument" is the stream you are tapping into.

Q.E.D.

Your personal view does not set the rules for the debate or argument, your position also provides neither logic or reason.

It is a fact of two views...theism: the belief in a deity, A-theism the belief there is no diety, since when does logic and reason apply to only Atheism?...because you want it to?

Please your gonna have to try a little harder you cannot apply the rules partially.


As I said, your site has been designed no differently than the sites that harbour the stupid Creation vs Evolution debate...the ineternet has enough stupidity like this as it is...I think you guys are missing my point...find somethin better to do with your skills than waste it on stupid debates that only invoke circular reasoning...get my point yet?
Smee

[Nameless]

It is your belief that we are here by a natural process to which you cannot answer the question as to how did the natural process begin?


Sidenote: That's always a stupid argument anyway. Sure, science can't prove how natural process began (although logic dictates it has always been) but if God created everything, who created God? And why does God exist? Nethier side has the 'ultimate' answers because the only answers leave more questions. But at least science doesn't make a fool of it's claiming ridiculous and disprovable things.

[AaronD]

You don't need faith to NOT believe in something.

Absolutely you do...Atheism cannot demonstrate the "non-existence" of a deity....in as much as one requires faith in God and cannot prove His existence, neither can the Atheist disprove His existence, and is therefore relying exclusively on faith that He does not exist. In order to prove that He doesn't exist, one would have to have the absolute and complete knowldge of the entire intricate workings of the universe, therefore Atheism is founded on Faith.

I never met Alexander the Great but I have faith he existed because the History books tell me so...but there are those who don't believe he existed because they cannot trust the History books because they are fallable due in fact that they are written by man. (sound familiar?) the account of Alexander the Great is based on Witness accounts...lol


I believe that you are getting the meaning of faith completely mixed up. Let me address all of your points, and how it is you that is using circular reasoning, not us. For this, I will be using a definition search on Google. I feel that using Google to denounce your claims would be very appropriate in this situation.



a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
an institution to express belief in a divine power
Acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or reason.
Belief without evidence
Strong belief in something without proof or evidence



I believe that addresses all of your false claims about the meaning of faith. Now, to tackle all of your points individually. I will start with your paragraph on Athiesm.


You don't need faith to NOT believe in something.

Absolutely you do...Atheism cannot demonstrate the "non-existence" of a deity....


The beauty of not believing in a deity is that there is no need to demonstrate said deity's non-existence. What you are using right now can be referred to as circular logic, the exact thing you were accusing us of using. Your entire argument thus far has relied completely on some un-based belief that there is a deity, and in order not to believe in it, you must first disprove said deity's existence. The reason Athiests exist is because there is no actual proof that a deity does exist, and faith alone is not enough of a reason to believe in one. There is no valid counterpoint to my argument, and I know you will most likely re-iterate what you have said already, but I feel the definition pretty much resolves that.


in as much as one requires faith in God and cannot prove His existence, neither can the Atheist disprove His existence, and is therefore relying exclusively on faith that He does not exist. In order to prove that He doesn't exist, one would have to have the absolute and complete knowldge of the entire intricate workings of the universe, therefore Atheism is founded on Faith.


Atheism does not require proof of God's non-existence, as logic alone could cover that. And that, in fact, is exactly what Atheism is based on: logic. Logic clearly demonstrates that there is no God, and that a deity could not logically exist. Logic is, and never will be, founded on faith, which means that Atheism, by association, is not either.


I never met Alexander the Great but I have faith he existed because the History books tell me so...but there are those who don't believe he existed because they cannot trust the History books because they are fallable due in fact that they are written by man. (sound familiar?) the account of Alexander the Great is based on Witness accounts...lol


That is not faith, it is knowledge. The events of history, although recorded by man, and therefore fallible, are very reliable due to the fact that they have been proven through archeological evidence. There is no archeological (or any other kind of logical) evidence that a deity exists, so the existence of a deity relies completely on faith. Yes, history has been embellished a little, as history is written by the winners, but archeological evidence is evidence nonetheless, and can absolutely be trusted. You are comparing two completely unrelated things here (ie something that cannot be proven, and something that already has), so no, your argument about history being fallible because it was recorded by men does not sound familiar.


To which that claim requires faith to support that denial....lol

This site is no different than the morons who debate Evolution vs Creation...its a constant stream of circular reasoning which is the fuel required to support the argument.

Basically you should have called this site the "Church of Ad hominem Debate" not the church of Google ROFLMAO!

Once again, you are confusing logic and reason with faith, which is belief that goes against all logic and reason. The only "stream of circular reason which is the feul required to support the argument" is the stream you are tapping into.

Q.E.D.

Your personal view does not set the rules for the debate or argument, your position also provides neither logic or reason.

It is a fact of two views...theism: the belief in a deity, A-theism the belief there is no diety, since when does logic and reason apply to only Atheism?...because you want it to?

Please your gonna have to try a little harder you cannot apply the rules partially.


As I said, your site has been designed no differently than the sites that harbour the stupid Creation vs Evolution debate...the ineternet has enough stupidity like this as it is...I think you guys are missing my point...find somethin better to do with your skills than waste it on stupid debates that only invoke circular reasoning...get my point yet?
Smee

Nope, still unclear. We are not missing your point, you are just missing the point entirely. The funny thing is that we are being perfectly reasonable, and I find it hilariously ironic being accused of circular reasoning by the guy that says that you need faith in order not to worship a deity because you cannot disprove said deity's existence. I think you have things a little mixed up here, on both the account of who it is that is using circular reasoning, and who is missing the point entirely, not to mention your misconceived definitions of belief, faith, and lack thereof. And, despite our best efforts, and our having already covered in triplicate the points which you are trying to make (and, on top of all of this, your incessant reiteration of the same exact two points which weren't correct to begin with, so repeated utterance of them won't change that), you still somehow managed to give one last pathetic attempt at a half-assed rebuttal in desperation. I could just copy-paste my previous points, to resolve once again your previous points' reiterations, but I feel content merely to read your argument, if said ramblings can be so entitled, and chuckle quietly to myself. I think that you have made your point abundantly clear, and it has shown itself to be absurdly blunt (for all its wear and tear). Write back soon, your attempts at counterpoints always give me a good laugh, or at least a chuckle.

Aaron

[Aviel]

Faith is not necessary to have a religion. Before I knew about the chruch of Google, I was a Jewish Atheist. Although some of you might find this to be impossible, trust me that it is not. Faith is not necessary.

[disciple]

Faith is not necessary to have a religion. Before I knew about the chruch of Google, I was a Jewish Atheist. Although some of you might find this to be impossible, trust me that it is not. Faith is not necessary.

Not at all hard to understand, I know many people (of many denominations) who worship out of HOPE (that by doing so they will not fry in the pits of darkness) with little or no FAITH that all the kowtowing and groveling is actually being herd as, being intelligent, they DOUBT all the crap they have been fed on religion.

Hence you are here.

Welcome. Cheers; d

[Carnifex]

Your personal view does not set the rules for the debate or argument, your position also provides neither logic or reason.

It is a fact of two views...theism: the belief in a deity, A-theism the belief there is no diety, since when does logic and reason apply to only Atheism?...because you want it to?

Please your gonna have to try a little harder you cannot apply the rules partially.


As I said, your site has been designed no differently than the sites that harbour the stupid Creation vs Evolution debate...the ineternet has enough stupidity like this as it is...I think you guys are missing my point...find somethin better to do with your skills than waste it on stupid debates that only invoke circular reasoning...get my point yet?
Smee

*sigh* your personal views dont set the rules for debate either. From what I see, is that while browsing web forums you picked up the phrases "circular reasoning" and "ad hominem" (which I dont get why you put that in, do you know what it means?) and plug them everywhere.

Since you seem to want to break down the word Atheism, A-theism means literally without theism, dont change deliberatly say the belief there is no god so you can put the word believe in there. That alone still doesnt counter any of the points aarond has made (good job aaron). We have given you definitions of what faith is, and sorry but upon reviewing those conditions I do not see why you think atheism requires faith.