An argument for Faith and Religion, but you won't like it

I think I listened to this debate live. I'm not sure what you mean by "Lennox misunderstands Faith completely, at least from the perspective of Faithism." Is that, like, a "prosperity gospel" faith in faith itself?

As for Dawkins, it's not that he misunderstands the value of faith. He misdefines it. He defines it as "blind belief, regardless of evidence for or against" (my quotes represent my own paraphrase--those are not his exact words). It's not completely his fault. That was what emerged out of the Enlightenment which pitted "faith" against "reason." Unfortunately, that's a far cry from the "faith" described in the Bible, for which biblical writers appealed to experience, testimony, etc. Not at all "blind belief." The biblical concept of faith is the Greek word pistis, in which "belief" or "choice of opinion" is a tiny part, overshadowed by loyalty, trust, faithfulness, etc. We use that concept when it comes to national or organizational loyalty ("keeping the faith") or in marriage ("faithful"), neither of which have much to do with what opinions you choose to hold that cannot be supported by evidence. Dawkins argues against a very feeble straw man.

When it comes to "faith in Jesus the Messiah," it's not opinion about certain historical details; it's trust, loyalty, allegiance.

The "everybody is/has something" is an argument older than dirt and it has no substance.

I don't accept any of these things, be it on faith or otherwise. You seem filled with prejudices about what other people think.

Anyway to go back to the "everybody is/has argument". It is an old argument, used by lawyers and people who want to work the system in general.

Let me give you a few examples of that:

1) Everybody is a thief. Private property is an illusion based on a lie. (Easily demonstrable BTW)

2) Everybody is a murderer. (even easier to prove)

3) Everybody is a liar. (That one is obvious)

Using one of these the way you do you can never be proven wrong about anything, no matter what you do.


About what you presumed to know about my "faith".

I don't think we can necessarily understand the universe. Our intellect has been honed by the necessities of survival, if it allows us to understand the universe it would be purely accidental and not at all consequential.

I don't know what you mean by consistently. It has a definition in Mathematics but I don't know if you're capable of understanding it. It doesn't seem like you are.

You don't seem to get the concept of time either "across time" must sound like some poetic image to you. Poetry is nice but it doesn't have its place in an argument.


Don't be offended, most people are just as limited as you are.


I think the scientific method is solid and can be trusted but within the limitations of said scientific method. Big surprise, you don't seem to know that either. You're more suited to be a poet than a scientist, evidently.


I don't think being is preferable to non being, especially if all you are is a big ball of pain!! I've seen people who would have been much better off dead than how they were but who were trapped either in a system that wouldn't let them take their own life or in a "faith" that prevented them from doing the only thing they wanted to do. I think they can thank you and your friends for that.

You mean you made a substantial bet and you won?

Will you cut the crap already? You just asked me if would take "maybe we can know the universe, maybe we can't" as an axiom.


What's wrong with you?


You really should be a lawyer, maybe not a very good one, but at least you have the spirit. Instead of asking real questions, you try to defeat the very notion of a question. Yeah, that's "smart".


Organized religion is a fraud. Its proponents have taken advantage of people for centuries, in hundreds of countries. You exploit people's fear of the unknown by pretending that you possess some kind of privileged conduit to "whatever has created all of this". People rely on you to appease their fear and what do they get in return? a bigger fear!!! I mean the idea of nothingness is unpleasant but the scarecrow you assholes are all dangling is eternal torture.


If you don't mind, I'll keep my oblivion and you can shove your " heaven and hell" right up your ass where it came from!

 I don't mind discussing these things but you are not interested in any reasonable discussion, obviously.

"do you take that as an axiom"!!! Are fucking kidding me???

 Angry much?

Your claim that you have no "foundational unprovable axioms" is a special kind of ignorant stupid.

You know whenever I forget how bullshitty you people can get I just have to start a discussion like this. I mean you ask tons of questions, you never answer any, you dismiss everything I say without even bothering to argue properly. I mean when do you do anything else?

Religion is like cancer, the more of it there is the more quickly it destroys everything that constitutes a person and replaces it with some kind of mindless zombie.

"You people."

I never answer questions? I even answered your question about the size of a raccoon!😂😂😂

You're hilarious.

Neither of my two first responses to you on this thread had any questions whatsoever.

Maybe I misunderstood. Did you mean "The 'everybody is/has something' is an argument older than dirt and it has no substance, but I do have a faith base at some level"? Is that what you meant?