Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Jules Saturday, April 19, 2008 - 14:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I seem to remember there was a bit more to this article before. Personally, I think faith is somewhat like the placebo effect. It does work, but only if you believe it can. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, April 19, 2008, 15:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Always nice to wake up to a fun little paradox like that. Thanks Jules. :)(reply to this comment)

from GoldenMic Monday, March 24, 2008 - 12:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Faith is certainly a very "loaded" term for us ex-culties. All those Bible verses and teachings, and what it came down to was "do what we say or you are scum". Then, there's the fanatic Christian idea: "no doubts since the Bible says it and the Bible is perfect...". For me, faith is not blind allegiance or rigid belief in the so-called "truth's" of the Bible, but more a matter of living a life that attempts to demonstrate decency and kindness and caring. Even as I call myself a Christian, I repudiate much of what is said and done in the name of Christianity, and I refuse to ignore that the Bible was written by priveleged males who were steeped in their own culture. For me, having faith represents my attempt to be a good person and believe that there is meaning in the universe, some purpose. I do this because it feels right to me, and because it gives me hope for myself and others. I think that's actually the point of "faith" for me, acting as if there was meaning and goodness because it gives me joy. Just my thoughts, of course. (reply to this comment)

from hope this helps Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 19:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Faith is the opposite of doubt. (reply to this comment)

from Thomas Arnold, former Chair of history at Oxford Sunday, March 23, 2008 - 04:41 (Agree/Disagree?) "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is PROVED BY BETTER AND FULLER EVIDENCE of every sort, than the great sign which God has given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." (reply to this comment)

From exfamily Sunday, March 23, 2008, 06:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Ha! What else would a Christian say? I dare you to provide any evidence. Oh, and here are a few facts that have better evidence than the resurrection (someone might want to let him know about these): 9/11, the existence of George Washington, the existence of the company called "Microsoft", and the fact that Newton is dead. These, my good Arnold, are facts that have far more "better and fuller evidence" than the supposed "fact" of the resurrection. Again, please point to the evidence. For whatever evidence you might bring, I will bring up evidence or a scenario to the contrary, and we will see whose version is more likely. (Note: I don't want to discourage you, the poster, but my evidence will always be more likely simply for the fact that the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist, and therefore your entire argument will necessarily rely on a premise which, as far as we have been able to determine, is fantasy. It follows then that your argument will only have as much substance as the premise it is based on.)(reply to this comment)

From edit Sunday, March 23, 2008, 06:58 (Agree/Disagree?) "the existence of George Washington" Should be "the fact that he existed".(reply to this comment)

from cheeks Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 10:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I think the question for you is do you think your dad is God because if you do maybe you should take some medication. (reply to this comment)

From therli Thursday, March 20, 2008, 14:44 (Agree/Disagree?) and maybe you should learn how to understand english(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Thursday, March 20, 2008, 21:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Maybe you should learn how to write English.(reply to this comment)

from J_P Thursday, March 20, 2008 - 03:17 (Agree/Disagree?) There is no god, though that thought might not be comforting for some, at least you don't have to be bitter towards anyone/anything. You or he were not being punished for anything by said god. (reply to this comment)

from geo Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 20:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Faith, is the term often used to signify the process by which the subject identifies with the object of their beliefs, though they lack corporeal or objective evidence to support those beliefs. Credulity, in other words. Faith is a very convenient signifier used constantly in theological dialectic. I think it is popular because it entails much less then even presuppositional belief. Faith is the religious term that is closest to being only a symbol of a term. Where belief is a complex structure, faith is the missing plank in the bridge that connects us to that structure, especially in the case that our beliefs are unfounded. We use faith almost as a filler when we don't have anything material to give so we offer a word instead (e.g., "I have faith that he has a good chance of winning the election"). And with faith we can expect to be disappointed. I'm almost tempted to say that claiming strong faith in one's beliefs is already admitting non-belief. In the sense that, I may be religious but I want you to understand that I don't live as if I believe, I'm not irrational and I'm not going to consider the lilies of the field or blow myself up in an airplane, so I say: "I'm Bob and I have strong faith in my religious beliefs". The implicit message being that, not to worry I don't except the rationality of my own beliefs and only relate to them in a pseudo-fictional sense and use the term faith to suggest that I am slightly credulous but not a religious nut. Now there are religious nuts who truly believe in the reality of their position, but, this is not the common condition. The true believer who completely identifies with their fantasies in such a way that they are indistinguishable from their perceived reality, does not need to speak of faith. As Wittgenstein said, "If there were a verb meaning 'to believe falsely', it would not have any significant first person, present indicative." Likewise, the atheist may be considered a believer, not in the fantasy language of theological dogma, but, in terms of subjective phenomena. If the atheist truly believes the rationality of his position then he does not require symbolic mediation, and certainly not faith, in order to bridge the gap between his beliefs and his cogitation. Because, as a true believer, there is no gap to bridge. (reply to this comment)

From exfamily Thursday, March 20, 2008, 07:58 (Agree/Disagree?) As J_P said, atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief. You aren't born with a belief in God, you acquire it through religion or culture. Therefore non-belief in God is the default position, and requires neither faith nor belief.(reply to this comment)

From geo Thursday, March 20, 2008, 21:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Your reply to my comment seems non sequitur. I thought I may have presented my position poorly but, after rereading my comment, I confirmed that I made no mention of belief in god. When I spoke of atheistic belief it was only in terms of subjective phenomena. What I meant to convey was that, the atheist does not disassociate his beliefs from his reality, because, he does not need to. The same can't be said for those claiming religious belief. Of course, atheism by definition is not a belief. However, that is a tired proposition that gains you no ground, like stating, that one is not born with a belief in god. This is obvious. We are not born with a belief in anything. It has been said, learning is believing. A child would not develop any useful intellectual capacity if they did not comprehend and believe in the symbolic representations (like language and societal norms) that structure their social environment. What I propose is far more original. I propose that the necessity of faith and presuppositional belief (which we can assume because it is required), unique to religion, is not a basis for belief but rather an argument for disbelief. As far as I am concerned, faith is just the side show, belief is what is axiomatic to religion. For a religion to function it needs believers, so belief is necessarily stressed. However, the common state for the matured is not one of belief in the intangible. For a religion to survive it must appeal to non-believers, so, symbols of belief are necessary. This is why the founders of the various religions often come before the symbols and rituals of their own religions. The fact that every religion (even superstition) at some point adopts these symbols of belief, if they hope to shift from being an eccentric cult to become an excepted religion, is an acknowledgment that the common state is one of non-belief. To put it another way the catholic believes in the church, the priest, the pope, the ritual because they are unable to believe in an invisible god. The most powerful symbols necessary for cognitive function are words. Because, you are unable to believe in the religion we have a word you can believe in instead: faith. Take the biblical account of Abraham (which I don't believe actually occurred), do I think he planned to murder his son and burn his son's body because he had great faith? No. Of course not. If he planned to follow through, with sacrificing his son, it would be because he believed the voices in his head, because, he was fucking crazy. And I dont think your average religious person really believes this crap either. Would a religious person plan to murder their children to prove their great faith in god? Would they consider a friend or relative who murdered their children out of religious belief to be extra pious? When Andrea Yates drowned her children because she believed god told her to, I dont recall any religious people praising her for her belief in god. Her belief in god was considered grounds for an insanity defense, and it worked. All that to say, claiming strong religious belief is at best self-delusion, at worst, insanity. If you're talking about someone who has strong belief in their perception of subjective phenomena, and is not insane, then your probably talking about an atheist. (reply to this comment)

From jezz Friday, March 21, 2008, 12:26 (Agree/Disagree?) What about the cults that committed mass suicide? They were all a bunch of religious nuts. Do you not think that there may have been some who were greatly conflicted and had to cling on to their "great faith" to follow through? Like most good and loyal family members, when my mom has questions or doubts, she gives it all to jesus, trusts the lord and clings on to her faith. I think that without "faith" my mom would not still be in TF. Yet I also wonder if there is Nothing that she wouldn't do to show her devotion and utter commitment to TF leaders who she believes or has faith that they speak gods voice. If, for example, TF leaders tell their members to commit mass suicide and my mom goes along, does that mean that she thinks that that she needs great faith but she really doesn't? I absolutely agree that one does not truly believe if faith is a necessity; however, it's the examples that you used such as Abraham and Isaac that I got stuck on. Are you saying that one cannot commit murder based on their faith? If so, would it be safe to say that as long as my mom needs her faith, I shouldn't need to worry about her killing her children and herself were she ever ordered to by TF leaders? Was none of the rape, molestation, beatings, child labor, etc that went on in TF ever based on faith? I know of a couple parents in TF that balled their eyes out while hearing the screams of their child being beat in the next room. In Some cases, I don't think that certain parents truly believed it was right but were just having "faith" and "trusting the lord" that it was the right thing to do as they were following Bergs teachings. (reply to this comment)

From jezz Friday, March 21, 2008, 22:18 (Agree/Disagree?) "Take the biblical account of Abraham (which I don't believe actually occurred), do I think he planned to murder his son and burn his son's body because he had great faith? No. Of course not. If he planned to follow through, with sacrificing his son, it would be because he believed the voices in his head, because, he was fucking crazy." I guess what I'm wondering is this: Are you saying that our parents are truly insane? You say that such atrocious crimes could not be commited based on faith which would mean that our parents who are guilty of such crimes are true religious believers. "Now there are religious nuts who truly believe in the reality of their position, but, this is not the common condition. The true believer who completely identifies with their fantasies in such a way that they are indistinguishable from their perceived reality, does not need to speak of faith" On the other hand, since my parent does claim to need faith (according to your comment), I don't need to worry about about her committing such crimes. O but wait - she already has. I'm not sure that I'm convinced that my mom is truly insane. Maybe she is. Does Zerby belong in the nut house or in jail? I would think jail but your comment leads me to believe that you would say the nut house? Am I confusing myself or did I not read your comment properly? Am I listening to the voices in my head because I'm fucking crazy?? (reply to this comment)

From geo Sunday, March 23, 2008, 22:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Not sure what you read. No, there is nothing in my comment, that by some transitive property, suggests religious faith is not dangerous. There are people, outliers, who truly believe their religious dogma, but this is not the case--on average. Religious worshipers and cult members, like your mother, may be ignorant-easily manipulated-sadomasochistic-sycophants, but not insane--on average. The term most fitting abusive cult members, is not insane nor pious religious believer, but rather: criminal. It is my opinion, that the average religious person is not convinced by their own theological dogmas, symbolic mediation being symptomatic of this, and is capable of rational thought and behavior when it is convenient for them. Religious blather is often used to shield the subject from accountability, except in rare cases of insanity. I use the term self-delusion purposely because, more often than not, the subject is unaware of the cognitive dissidence that results in their religious ideation. (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Friday, March 21, 2008, 15:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I can see your point, being a parent I, and I am sure you would too, go into that room and kill whoever was doing that to my child. I think for most parents in the Family reality left them and some sort of insanity infested them. No matter how much faith they had, or were trying to have, at some point they should have stood up for us. If nothing else they should have gone in there and beaten someones eyes closed.(reply to this comment)

From exfamily Friday, March 21, 2008, 12:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Fair enough, I was under the impression you were making the typical argument of trying to equate atheism with religious belief. From what I gather then, you are saying that an atheist is a believer in (their perception of) subjective phenomena. I don't see how this is relevant to the atheistic position. The only thing that defines an atheist is a lack of belief in a deity of any sort. An atheist can have any other sorts of delusions; he can believe in aliens, unicorns, etc., and still be an atheist. I'd also like you to clarify that very ambiguous statement ("[an atheist has] strong belief in their perception of subjective phenomena"). Do you mean that an atheist believes that what he perceives is true? Does that include believing in the face of conflicting data? Does this belief apply only to subjective phenomena, or does he also believe in his perception of objective facts? Does it mean an atheist won't believe in another's perception of subjective phenomena, i.e. won't believe another person has a headache? (reply to this comment)

From geo Thursday, March 27, 2008, 02:23 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree. The term atheist, by itself, does not necessarily imply disbelief in the supernatural, nor does it account for the methodology that leads to disbelief; I suppose I would be referring more to a skeptic or a skeptical atheist. Subjective phenomena, is an ambiguous term. Some people believe all experience is subjective and it is difficult to argue otherwise. I can only clarify the term in its exact usage in my comment above. First objective facts, these are thing that exist independent our perception of them. Walls are objective facts. You don't need to understand or believe in walls to hit into them. You can be blind and completely unaware of the walls existents; walls might be against your religion; you may be too ignorant to comprehend what a wall is; still, walls will directly obstruct your movement. My definition of objective facts is summed up perfectly by Philip K Dick (SF writer: Bladerunner, Minority Report, etc.,) when asked to define reality, he said, "Reality is what's still there when you stop believing in it." Subjective phenomena then would be everything else, specifically, things that exist dependent human perception of them. Why I believe I cannot walk through walls and why a believe I cannot cross a line drawn in the sand result from my perception of subjective phenomena (logic, rules, social norms, deductive reasoning, verbal instructions, etc.,). (reply to this comment)

From J_P Thursday, March 20, 2008, 05:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Athiesm is the null hypothesis. In the absence of proof of a god, there must be the assumption of no god. This is not a belief in the same sense of believing something that is not provable. You can either know something or not know it. If one does not know something, then they can choose to believe in it as a substitute for not being able to know it. If I do not know there is a god, I don't have to believe that there is not a god. The religious person has to believe that there is a god in the absence of proof of its existance.(reply to this comment)

From this is a good example Thursday, March 20, 2008, 08:22 (Agree/Disagree?) This video is a classic and shows very clearly why it is usually useless to engage a theist in argument. They lack the mental capacity to follow the argument: They can't seem to remember what was said earlier, they can't be intellectually honest, and they can't seem to understand the logic of the argument. Finally, at the end, they show their true selves by resorting to bullying of some sort. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs3RKZjSzYg(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, March 20, 2008, 20:22 (Agree/Disagree?) What exactly is your point? That engaging in circular reasoning with another person (who goes into some psycho babble about how there are only theists and atheists, and agnostics are really atheists) can be very frustrating? I wonder how Warren Buffet and other agnostics feel about being classified by this clown as atheists. That the Christian on the other end didn't think to challenge the host on that is unfortunate, as he could have won the debate over that indiscretion.(reply to this comment)

From steam Friday, March 21, 2008, 07:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Well here is your chance to debate what he said, I concur with his statement that an agnostic is someone who does not believe in God, however he does not completely shut the door to it being a possibility. He is an atheist in that he is a-theist in his belief but not if you define an atheist as an individual who says there is no possibility for there to be a God ever. Instead of calling it psycho babble explain how it isn't a very cogent definition of terms.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Friday, March 21, 2008, 16:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Gladly. Wordnet: a- the- ist (noun) Someone who denies the existence of God. agnsotic (noun) 1. someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something 2. a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist) Do you see why an agonstic might get offended by this guy's suggestion that agnostics are really atheists? I'm not sure where the atheists are going with this. Maybe they're just trying to make themselves look stronger by adding agnostics into their fold. Maybe they're trying to reach out to the agnostics in hopes that they will become like them. I don't know. But if I was one of them, it would definitely rub me the wrong way. (reply to this comment)

From exfamily Friday, March 21, 2008, 06:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you missed the point of that debate. It wasn't about whether agnostics are really atheists.(reply to this comment)

from exfamily Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 06:52 (Agree/Disagree?) There is no god, so of course he wasn't around to protect you or your father. (reply to this comment)

From therli Wednesday, March 19, 2008, 08:53 (Agree/Disagree?) i agree and i'm sure you're helping the article maker a lot(reply to this comment)

from therli Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 05:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Faith can be proven scientifically. While experimenting with the areas of the brain, scientists have found out that if you stimulate a certain part of the “temporal lobe” (I think it’s that part) it can provide you with a religious feeling. It’s also human’s nature to want to get answers to the metaphysical questions. It cannot accept to not answer the unanswered and therefore invents a substitute: God. I’m sorry; I’m mixing philosophy and science. Anyways, Christians are dualist: they believe there is a difference between the mind and the brain (like Descartes) as opposed to Materialism which makes no difference between the two. Materialists have to explain the junction of the mental and physical, which is being confirmed in a scientific way thanks to the improvement of technology. (reply to this comment)

From exfamily Wednesday, March 19, 2008, 06:51 (Agree/Disagree?) A "religious feeling" is not faith. It generally refers to the feeling one gets in meditation, or what the evangelical Christians sometimes experience in their weirdness.(reply to this comment)

From therli Wednesday, March 19, 2008, 08:52 (Agree/Disagree?) you're right about the evangelical christians but this feeling can also be interpreted as faith. because what is faith? To have faith involves an act of will. you have to believe in a higher power which is the consequence of the stimulation spoken of earlier (reply to this comment)

From J_P Thursday, March 20, 2008, 03:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Faith, per se, is not always related to religion. It can be a complete trust of someone or something (ie a plan). You can have faith in a higher power, but the fact that one has faith in a person or outcome does not imply automatically religion.(reply to this comment)

From therli Thursday, March 20, 2008, 03:33 (Agree/Disagree?) of course but in this case, it is related(reply to this comment)

from Lance Tuesday, March 18, 2008 - 23:55 (Agree/Disagree?) I find it interesting that you would ask this question, as many established christians never stop to consider the subject. What is Faith? If you read the book of Hebrews you will find the passage that says: " Faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things unseen." I could go on with the rest of the chapter, but I feel that lately young people in the cult are not encouraged to learn about these simple verses and chapters. It seems that believing in the cult is just good enough. Faith is indeed a tangible thing that you can hold onto when no other option is available. It can be a substance for those who can never see the unseen. (kind of sounds familiar eh?) I believe that the best description of faith is the faith that you have in yourself. (reply to this comment)

From x.simone.x Thursday, March 20, 2008, 12:48 (Agree/Disagree?) maybe i am crazy! Im not in a cult or that, im jus ur average 17yr old who likes to party, works to pay for my car!!(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Thursday, March 20, 2008, 12:51 (Agree/Disagree?) You're not crazy, you're just on a site for young people that were raised in a cult.(reply to this comment)

From x.simone.x Thursday, March 20, 2008, 13:20 (Agree/Disagree?) its jus me trying to find out things about it, im very nosy, im not allowed contact with my grandad. he is no longer in a cult but he likes to talk about it and my mum doesnt approve of it(reply to this comment)