Arrogancy

That's not faith. Faith is the expectation of things not immediately seen. Faith is most often based on proof, ie. "I have faith that I will get up in the morning because I got up yesterday and nothing particularly happened to change my reasoning." That is also the faith defined in the Bible as well as illustrated, ie. Jesus asking for people to put faith in him after demonstrating why they should (miracles, scriptures).

You're using the definition of "blind faith," for whatever reason, and I've seen many people around here making the same mistakes. Perhaps that is because of the idea that some that call themselves Christians give off - but that's just using a "worst case scenario" as a basis.

Shadownought

Two things.

1) Assuming for a second that the Bible is true, people did not have to take things on faith back then. God threw miracles and floods all over the place, and even spoke to some people. They needed no more "faith" to believe that God exists than we need "faith" to believe that George W. Bush exists.

2) Humans today are a different story. We have NO evidence that the events of the Bible ever happened. All we have is the Bible itself, and the events described in the Bible are, amazingly enough, not supported by either natural evidence or historical documents from the time period. This DOES require faith, because it cannot be proven. Believing the events of the Bible actually happened is no different from believing the events of The Odyssey actually happened.

Arrogancy

Well, the Bible itself says that miracles would stop because the Bible would be sufficient evidence.

Actually, many of the events in the Bible are (subjectively) proven. Not all, of course, and much would be impossible to prove, mainly the miracles. However, save macroevolution and apologetic arguments, the Bible is basically concurrent with science and history. Any argument "against" has an argument "for" in archaeology thus far, and further study tends to support the Bible's history as compared to disporving it. That's another thread in itself, and we shouldn't get to sidetracked with that in this one.

The other and perhaps main factor to use is if living by the Bible's moral code is superior to living by various other moral codes. If it was created by a higher power, than the higher powers wisdom should override human wisdom. Thus, examining the Bible's wisdom/morals should prove to be superior than current human wisdom.

Garbles18

However you want to define faith, you should notice that most people use faith to mean two different things.

The first kind of faith is like an example by Dan Barker in "Losing Faith in Faith". I have faith that when I flip a certain light switch, the light in the room will come on. I have that faith because it has come on every other time I have flipped that switch.

The second kind of faith is the one you refer to as blind faith. Whenever an atheist says they want proof of the correctness of someone's beliefs and that someone responds that you just have to have faith, they are meaning "blind faith".

The difference between these two is this: if I flip the light switch and the light does not come on, my world is not turned upside down. I just assume that there is a logical explanation as to why it didn't come on, such as a short somewhere. But I do not deny that the light did not come on. I'm not going to say that the light really is still on (God exists) when there is no evidence that it is on (no evidence of God's existence). I certainly won't say that you should have faith that the light is on just because I can "feel" that the light is on even though my faulty human senses can't "see" the light.

You may not like the second usage of the word faith, but the word faith is commonly used to both mean with and without evidence. It all depends on what context it is used in. This is actually a problem because too many theists try to say that atheists have faith in something and they are actually confusing the two uses of the word. Faith in a light switch is not the same as faith in a god.

Arrogancy

You're not adressing the point that the faith that the Bible expresses and what many theists believe is faith based on facts and intepretation. This is not "blind faith" because they have reason and have come to a conscious decision based on their accumilation (sp?) of facts and logic. That is why I quoted the examples that I did, so that Israel would have faith that Yaweh was supreme, he outdid the other Gods, so that people would believe that Jesus was the Christ, he did miracles, and quoted scriptures that proved that he was fulfilling prophecy. That's not blind faith, but faith based on knowledge. The Bible never stresses blind faith.

Whatever your belief in an origin, it requires faith because it is something that no one saw. Theories such as macroevolution take faith because much of it is unseen. To say that all Christians follow blind faith is just as errant as saying that all atheists are ignorant of Biblical concepts and are just being that way because it is "cool" to do so. You're defining the whole by the actions of some.

Garbles18

I'm just making the point that there are two common uses of the word faith. One use implies that there is evidence and the other says that you should believe with or without evidence.

As far as the Bible, as Shadownought said, the characters in the Bible were constantly being shown the truth of Christ's words and therefore, the use of faith in that sense is my first definition of faith, i.e. based on evidence. But, it is a different type of faith when someone says that you should have faith that Christ actually performed miracles and was the son of God. There is no evidence for this, and yet, most Christians have faith that it happened.

I don't agree that Macroevolution takes the same kind of faith as it takes to believe that Christ is the son of God. Macroevolution is based in the methodology of science. I have faith in the methodology of science because that same methodology has proven itself to be reliable in so many other scientific theories. There is a mountain of evidence to support Macroevolution, but there is no evidence to support that Christ is the son of God.

Edited to change Arrogancy to Shadownought above.

Biff the unclean

This is not "blind faith" because they have reason and have come to a conscious decision based on their accumilation (sp?) of facts and logic.
Which, oddly enough, never seem to be expressed on these boards
That is why I quoted the examples that I did, so that Israel would have faith that Yaweh was supreme, he outdid the other Gods, so that people would believe that Jesus was the Christ, he did miracles, and quoted scriptures that proved that he was fulfilling prophecy. That's not blind faith, but faith based on knowledge.
Nah, it's unadulterated blind faith. The Bible isn't presenting you with any evidence or proof. The Bible is only presenting you with claims. The blind faith IS the faith that it is presenting you with "facts and interpretation". You are required to have "blind" evidence less faith that there was a Yahweh, or a Jesus. You have to have blind faith that magic is real.
Belief in prophecy is even worse because you have to have blind faith that the laws of nature can be suspended. That the future is already set but that you still have free will. Those only the sentences you want are prophecies, and the sentences before and after that contradict them don't count. It just goes on and on.

The Bible never stresses blind faith.
I see. So if my friends said to me that a dead man had come back to life, and I wanted only the most minimal evidence that this cock & bull story were true, the bible wouldn't leave me with the nick name of "Doubting Thomas" then?

Whatever your belief in an origin, it requires faith because it is something that no one saw.
Again you are confusing the two definitions of the word "faith." Are you doing that on purpose, even after Garbles18 just wrote about that?

Theories such as macroevolution take faith because much of it is unseen.
What you call macro evolution is nothing more than accumulated micro evolution. It requires no faith at all. Being science it is based squarely on evidence.

To say that all Christians follow blind faith is just as errant as saying that all atheists are ignorant of Biblical concepts and are just being that way because it is "cool" to do so. You're defining the whole by the actions of some.
It isn't errant at all. If you base your faith on the stories of a old magic book while ignoring almost every field of science, and comparative mythology to boot, that is about as blind as blind can be. If you do not base them on this old book of magical stories then you aren't a Christian

Arrogancy

I wouldn't know. I haven't been here that long. However, from much of the scanning I've done, many of the atheists here base their suppositions on "blind faith," their feelings, as well.

What are you talking about? I said the Bible presents accounts in which people are shown miracles and fact to base their faith on and you reply with a discourse on belief in the Bible? That's irrelevant - I was referring specifically to the type of faith that the Bible expressed within.

I had the same problem with David M. Payne/hal when he came over to the rottentomatoes forum - I replied to an errant statement that he made about what was presented in the Bible, and I got the reply ,"he's supposing that the Bible is true." That's irrelevant.

My statement was from the literate angle of what the Bible contained, which had no bearing on if what was contained was factual or not.

The bible didn't give him that nickname, the church did. The Bible just plainly stated that Thomas doubted Jesus coming back to life and had to see it for himself to believe it.

As for your illustration - you're forgetting the whole point. You're forgetting that your friends are telling you about your mentor who you have total confidence in, is coming back from the dead, a person who you have seen raise others from the dead and who has told you multiple times WHEN and HOW he was going to die, and that he would come back afterwards. Now, that's better.

Are you ignoring that I seperate the definitions and specify them by calling one "blind faith" when talking about the subject? Are you doing that on purpose, even when the difference between how I state the two is clearly expressed in my last two replies?

Macroevolution supposes that one zoological species can turn into to another, something that no one has seen. This is based on a subjective accumilation of facts. That is faith.

You forget that the "old magical book" agrees with and predates in these beliefs, "proven" science. And that it contains explanations for all other comparative mythology, to boot, something that other mythology does not do. If you make a supposition about this book without first knowing the facts about it, THAT is blind faith.

Biff the unclean

However, from much of the scanning I've done, many of the atheists here base their suppositions on "blind faith," their feelings, as well.
Well, that's easy enough to fix. Just present some concrete evidence and we can all stop this silliness and get on to other things.

I said the Bible presents accounts in which people are shown miracles and fact to base their faith on and you reply with a discourse on belief in the Bible? That's irrelevant - I was referring specifically to the type of faith that the Bible expressed within.
Then no one who bases their faith on the Bible can have the type of faith expressed by the characters in it. Since ALL Christians alive today believe in the Bible but NO Christian alive today was in it then no Christian has that type of faith

My statement was from the literate angle of what the Bible contained, which had no bearing on if what was contained was factual or not.
The literate angle is that the characters in a story acted in certain ways and held certain opinions. Since the central theme of the story revolves around a super hero and his super powers the logical assumption is that it is a work of fiction. The characters believed what ever the authors wrote that they believed. Just like Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen really and truly believed in Superman. Their faith is based not on the fact that Superman saves them but because the writers give them this faith. Were I, who am not part of the Superman novels, to believe in him my faith would, by necessity, have to be blind.

The bible didn't give (St Thomas) that nickname, the church did. The Bible just plainly stated that Thomas doubted Jesus coming back to life and had to see it for himself to believe it.
It also plainly states that Jesus took him to task for wanting proof instead of believing blindly

As for your illustration - you're forgetting the whole point. You're forgetting that your friends are telling you about your mentor who you have total confidence in, is coming back from the dead, a person who you have seen raise others from the dead and who has told you multiple times WHEN and HOW he was going to die, and that he would come back afterwards. Now, that's better.
The point of the story is to warn Christians reading it, that they had better accept it WITHOUT EVIDENCE or God will be pissed at them.

Are you ignoring that I seperate the definitions and specify them by calling one "blind faith" when talking about the subject? Are you doing that on purpose, even when the difference between how I state the two is clearly expressed in my last two replies?
Apparently not clearly enough for someone of my limited intelligence.

Macroevolution supposes that one zoological species can turn into to another, something that no one has seen. This is based on a subjective accumilation of facts. That is faith.
Why do Christians keep saying that? Even when they are corrected they just move to the next person and repeat these claims. Not only does Christianity require that you believe blindly you also have to turn a blind eye to the facts.
One species has been seen evolving into another many times. It happens quite quickly with the creepy crawlies. That's why you need a new flu shot each year and why the AIDS virus has no cure. But if you want bigger animals there are the Rock Wallabies of Oahu which evolved into a separate species between 1925 and 1987. The White Rhinoceros which split into the distinct Northern and Southern White Rhinoceros species between 1885 and 1990. And the Cross River Gorilla which became a distinct species from the Eastern Lowland Gorilla since the Second Word War.

You forget that the "old magical book" agrees with and predates in these beliefs, "proven" science.
There is no magic in science. No adult men spring fully grown from a pile of dust, nobody walks on water or cures blindness by driving out devils.

And that it contains explanations for all other comparative mythology, to boot, something that other mythology does not do.
It doesn't explain why the stories for its hero are exactly the same stories that appear in older religions that the Bible claims are false.

If you make a supposition about this book without first knowing the facts about it, THAT is blind faith.
Didn't you start off by saying it was wrong to say such things about Atheists? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
You will find that most of the Atheists who post here became Atheists because they studied the Bible. They rejected it BECAUSE they know the facts about it.

Arrogancy

Biff, please use quote tages instead of bolds - it makes things slightly faster.

No time. Later.

Irrelevant. I said the type of faith shown IN the Bible and showed examples. Whether people can follow it or not held no bearing on the statement you quoted from me.

Superman doesn't claim to be fact. The Bible does.

When something claims to be fact, you reasearch it unbiasedly and see if the facts add up. If the facts add up to a certain point and you get to the point where you cannot research any deeper, you have to go on faith from that point on. Which is not "blind" if it goes by prior facts and knowledge.

No he didn't. He just stated that it's even better for those that don't have to be shown. He didn't rebuke Thomas for it, but stated that in comparison it's even better to believe based on the evidence shown thus far. There were no exclamation points there. Jesus didn't yell at him. And Thomas wasn't anywhere NEAR blind, unless you're forgetting the 50 billion times Jesus told his disciples that he would be ressurected and the times he resurrected people earlier.

So you ignored what I wrote eh? Because Thomas sure wasn't WITHOUT EVIDENCE since he saw the dead raised before, by Jesus at that, saw Jesus do countless other miracles, saw Jesus prophesy the events of his death and resurrection far in advance, etc. etc. etc. And he wasn't "told off for doubting," at that.

I don't see how it could have been made any more obvious, especially since you yourself responded to my specific usage of "blind faith."

And I specified zoological "species," and not "subspecies." Perhaps now you have the answer to why Christians keep saying that - perhaps you just keep responding with the wrong thing?

The Bible allows for the microevolution of a species and allows for a variance within such, and that has been observed. The problem comes with the wide "according to their kind" zoological definitions of animals, the thing that has, by the way, not been observed, which is why the argument still exists.

Yes they do - it just takes 50,000,000 years or whatever for them to do it in science.

Yes it does. It clearly allows for it.

Does that include the "facts" of the 7 creative days not being literal?

And no, I said it was wrong to generalize a group by a minority. The statement I made that you quoted didn't carry any notions of the sort.

Now I've really got to go. Be back eventually.