How do Atheists and Agnostics deal with death?

[Scribbler1]

I understand what you are saying but I do not get the impression that you have understood what I have been saying. Perhaps you would like to give it another read.

A person can have all the sincerity in the world, but if they "ought" to have known then it doesn't do them any good at all. It may mitigate the punishment but not the crime.

Starboy

I understand you but I disagree. For one thing, you are applying legal reasoning to a matter of belief. Faith is not dependant on logic or law so if you are explaining your sincere belief to another in the hopes of getting that person to see things your way there cannot be fraud. There simply is no room for "ought to know better" in faith, specifically religious belief. There are people who have faith and your lack of it means nothing to them. They might try to make you "see the light" but if you don't see it they will not stop believing.

That is my only point. I don't include the frauds and phonies with ulterior motives. Just the honest and genuine believers. They don't know from "ought to know better" and you will never make them know. It's not going to happen.

[Starboy]

I understand you but I disagree. For one thing, you are applying legal reasoning to a matter of belief. Faith is not dependant on logic or law so if you are explaining your sincere belief to another in the hopes of getting that person to see things your way there cannot be fraud. There simply is no room for "ought to know better" in faith, specifically religious belief. There are people who have faith and your lack of it means nothing to them. They might try to make you "see the light" but if you don't see it they will not stop believing.

But my point is that if you believe because of faith then you ought to at least suspect your own beliefs. It is not as if faith is a reliable way to know something. And everyone also knows this. That is because most of those that believe on faith will not believe in other religions on faith. They will tell you this to your face. So even they know that faith is at least suspect. So not only "ought" they to know. They do know. They have no excuse.

That is my only point. I don't include the frauds and phonies with ulterior motives. Just the honest and genuine believers. They don't know from "ought to know better" and you will never make them know. It's not going to happen.

It doesn't matter. Unless you have something better than faith to go on then even you suspect your own beliefs. That is if you are honest.

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

But my point is that if you believe because of faith then you ought to at least suspect your own beliefs. It is not as if faith is a reliable way to know something. And everyone also knows this. That is because most of those that believe on faith will not believe in other religions on faith. They will tell you this to your face. So even they know that faith is at least suspect. So not only "ought" they to know. They do know. They have no excuse.

It doesn't matter. Unless you have something better than faith to go on then even you suspect your own beliefs. That is if you are honest.

Starboy

I don't think you understand the concept of faith.

[sergeant]

This forum isn't going to help him...at least I don't think so!

[Starboy]

I don't think you understand the concept of faith.

I understand it very well. My bet is that you don't have a clue.

Starboy

[Starboy]

This forum isn't going to help him...at least I don't think so!

Help me what? Believe in the boogie man?

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

For the religious, faith is BEYOND knowledge. It is something that superscedes logic in some cases. That is something I have trouble acheiving, but for those that demonstrate true faith, it is powerful.

[Starboy]

For the religious, faith is BEYOND knowledge. It is something that superscedes logic in some cases. That is something I have trouble acheiving, but for those that demonstrate true faith, it is powerful.

That is close. Faith is a belief for no reason. A belief in spite of reason. A belief in spite of evidence. It is aptly described by the old saw, 'Don't confuse me with facts, I know my religion.' If you have "faith" then reason is not needed. In fact it just gets in the way.

That is the nice way to describe faith. I like to call it the institutionalized double standard. Religion that relies on "faith" to maintain beliefs about the supernatural manufactures liars on a grand scale.

Starboy

[dotcoma]

That is the nice way to describe faith. I like to call it the institutionalized double standard. Religion that relies on "faith" to maintain beliefs about the supernatural manufactures liars on a grand scale.

You put faith in yourself when you asssume you know all there is to know about our existence, out death, and our creation. Faith is the hope that you are right.

How is your stance any different? (other than the arrogance you seem to add)

[Starboy]

You put faith in yourself when you asssume you know all there is to know about our existence, out death, and our creation. Faith is the hope that you are right.

How is your stance any different? (other than the arrogance you seem to add)

I could be wrong. But that doesn't make you right. I am not the one advocating "faith" as a way to believe in anything.

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

Faith is beautiful, for it creates purpose.

[Jack]

You put faith in yourself when you asssume you know all there is to know about our existence, out death, and our creation. Faith is the hope that you are right.

How is your stance any different?

If you're saying that all of us believe in something that could be wrong, I'd agree, we're not much different.

But a key point of faith is that it is a hope without supporting evidence. What I believe is based on what evidence science has provided and examined and is logical. And I never expect to find absolute truth, whatever that means to anyone. I don't even believe there is an absolute truth to find.

So from my reality, what I believe is not "faith" by common definition.