Eudaimonist

By that standard, atheists who live according to ethical codes that are implicitly nontheistic (e.g. Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics) live by their rational conviction of nontheism. Problem solved.

K

GeoTheo:

First, your stat at home mom story sounds almost exactly like the story of my wife and myself - minus all the praying and God stuff. I'd hardly call that a case of living atheistic faith.

Now back to the real topic. The atheistic arguments you are talking about are only meant to show the inconsistency of Christian versions of God. They start with traits that are claimed by Christians add in some straightforward observations from nature and logically end up with a God no Christian would want a part of. This last part - the part that you think sounds like rejection of God - is necessary to demonstrate the impossibility of the claimed God. It is nothing more than that.

Here's an excercise.

Santa Clause gives presents every Christmas to all the good boys and girls in the world.

Try to logically refute that without sounding like you reject Santa.

GeoTheo

I chose an everyday example on purpose. No none seems to understand my point. My point is You can tell if people have faith by their actions.
The womans action is the point. If she continued to work, even though she felt she should stay at home, out of fear of financial consequences, it would show a lack of Faith on her part. Obviously since an angel did not come to her door with a fat check, signed Mr. Almighty God, non supernatural explanations can be posited. But her actions show faith on her part because there was a risk involved albeit a small one. But I was giving an example of how people growin their faith, not exercize faith against monumental odds.
An extreme example would be a person in the former Soviet Union going to the Gulag for refusing to stop proseletyzing. There is a quick test of a persons faith. Only a person with faith would suffer for it to that degree.

GeoTheo

Correction: Helen understands my point!
Now how could that be?
(thanks Helen)

HelenM

You're welcome, GeoTheo!

Mageth

My point is You can tell if people have faith by their actions.

Fine, so it illustrates that the woman really believes god is playing a part. The only thing is, there's no evidence that her faith had any influence on the outcome. If she placed her faith in tarot cards or tea leaves and stayed home, if her husband was qualified he'd still have gotten the job.

That's everyday stuff. Your Gulag example is perhaps more interesting. Yes, some do illustrate extraordinary "faith" in the face of persecution. But there are martyrs in all religions, are there not? Even outsite of religion, what about groups like Greenpeace? I've even seen people with enough "faith" to get arrested trying to save trees, for chrissakes. That speaks more to human nature than god-given power.

My guess is your housewife and her husband would probably remain in Moscow while the evangelist is exiled, however. Most people's faith only seems to go so far. Most xians turn to doctors in the face of illness even though they're praying, for example, though they may give god the credit for what the doctor does (even though the doctor may have treated and cured the local atheist the day before).

Mageth

HelenM:

Well, more like you believe what you believe, no matter what happens. Things happen in my life as an atheist just like they did when I was a theist. I get jobs that I apply for and am qualified for, I don't get jobs that I don't apply for or am not qualified for. No guiding Hand necessary.

braces_for_impact

Hmmm...sounds like you're saying only those with faith can make such a noble sacrifice. People have died for plenty of reasons, many religious (of various different types) and some secular. I dissagree that you can see faith by 'actions'. In the example noted above, whether christian or secular, the husband went out looking for a new job. A check came in the mail from the IRS. In this case, the same actions were taken. But the one with the 'faith' attributed those circumstances to god, while another may not.

It's not the actions that take place because of faith. Two people may donate a significant amount of time to charity, for example, but one will say it's the love of god which compels them to do this, while another will say that it is the love of humanity that compels them to do such a thing. In this example, it cheapens the deed in my opinion to attribute this to god, as it removes man from the possibility of doing good without some divine intervention.

K

GeoTheo:

I know a person of faith like you're talking about. She believes God will take care of everything. She has been forced to live on the kindness of others because she was always too busy listening to the Lord to worry about providing for herself. She has gone through several husbands (each one was originally hand-picked by God) and still tries to force an uneasy contact with the children she left because she knew the Lord wanted her to. Now she's facing retirement without a dime to her name. She's not directly related to me, but I was also hit up for several grand to keep her off the streets. I know another round is coming in the near future.

So, is it faith or irresponsibility? You can't have it both ways. If it's faith when it works out well, it's faith when it works out miserably. If it's irresponsible when it doesn't go as hoped, it's irresponsible when it does.

K

Flying planes into the WTC and killing thousands of innocent victims was one of the most undeniable acts of faith I've ever seen. No thanks, faith is for drones.