"Faith is the basis for my belief"

And non-mythical is your assumption.....Same old same old.

The Christian bible is as much a copy cat as any other mythological hypothesis. Copy cat is simply the development of ideas.

As I said before, there are three types of faith, blind, rational, and irrational. The Christian faith is a rational faith even though many accept it blindly

When you concede 'faith is the object of trust' you also give away any rational foundation. If your understanding of you religious beliefs is based on no evidence how can it be rational?

Either, both, but I'm lazy right now and do not want to do the leg work. I would rather debate the central issue of abortion, why pro-choice treat the unborn as secondary human beings. 0 :^)

Secondary human beings? Sounds like you're assuming your conclusion in the question....how are you defining human beings so that germ cells, cancer, or teratomas aren't included? Feel free to start a thread.

At worst, Pastafarianism mocks versions of Christianity which reject reality as we've come to know it through real and verifiable data. Those versions dogmatically cling to ignorance (and deserve mockery). On the whole, Pastafariansim is not in opposition to any religious view which does not seek to undermine verified and validated knowledge.

You equated the same defense to other religions, not me. I'm asking you to show me how the evidence is same regarding prophecy. 

They are the same because the evidence for each is faith itself.

It is [logical consistency] the starting point in showing that a belief is at least logical. 

Logical consistency is one of many  rudimentary hurdles a belief must clear to be considered logical.  Being logically consistent alone doesn't make a belief true.

I know the sun will rise because I have what is necessary for its uniformity. How does an atheist know it will? 

All that is needed to be certain there will be a sunrise tomorrow is every yesterday in recorded history - ie. Evidence. Same goes for being able to know what will happen to a dropped ball and the decay rate of uranium.

With uranium decay, you assume that what we determine in the present is the key to the past. 

Rightly so.

When you concede 'faith is the object of trust' you also give away any rational foundation. If your understanding of you religious beliefs is based on no evidence how can it be rational?

[...] The object of our faith is a rational, reasoning Person....

Human beings? Complete organisms that begins at conception, directs their growth from within, and contain in their makeup biological information from a male and female human being.

By secondary (second class) human beings I mean that pro-choice treats the unborn as less than it is, usually dehumanizing it.

You claim as your religion a satire, a mocking of Intelligent Design as believed in Christian circles. 

Now, when you say that versions of Christianity are mocked because the data is not real and verifiable, I claim that what is called science (it is really scientism) but looks at beginnings has exactly the same problem. 

A normal person would not believe something unless they thought of it as true. The object of that faith is important

A belief that is not logically consistent shows it has falsity to it. That, as a start, should be a discouragement and warning sign that something is wrong with a persons thinking. 

No, there is no guarantee that what happens today will happen tomorrow in a universe where random chance happenstance (that is not driven by intent and purpose) is its cause (somehow).

How do you know the same rate of decay was present in the past?

When you concede 'faith is the object of trust' you also give away any rational foundation. If your understanding of you religious beliefs is based on no evidence how can it be rational?

[...] The object of our faith is a rational, reasoning Person....

So, faith = the object of trust, and the object of trust(faith) = god? That would mean faith = god.  Let's try that in a sentence: "Atheism is the kind of faith/god happening in Kenosha right now." Nope... that doesn't seem to work.

This could be much clearer if you wouldn't define words with the words you're defining...

Human beings? Complete organisms that begins at conception, directs their growth from within, and contain in their makeup biological information from a male and female human being.

By secondary (second class) human beings I mean that pro-choice treats the unborn as less than it is, usually dehumanizing it.

I look forward to you're thread.  Be sure to tag me.

You claim as your religion a satire, a mocking of Intelligent Design as believed in Christian circles. 

*some* Christian circles.

Now, when you say that versions of Christianity are mocked because the data is not real and verifiable, I claim that what is called science (it is really scientism) but looks at beginnings has exactly the same problem. 

Uh, I didn't say that. I said versions of Christianity which run afoul of real and verifiable data deserved to be mocked. As an example, some Young Earth Creationists reject evolution, think dinosaurs and man co-existed, and, of course, believe the Earth is 6-10k years old in the face of concrete evidence to the contrary.  If education coupled with reason can't reach those who hold such beliefs then mockery is appropriate. YEC is a more sophisticated version of believing Elvis is still alive.

A normal person would not believe something unless they thought of it as true. The object of that faith is important

What does it feel like to be wrong and not know it? ...Just like being right. So, thinking your belief  (or "object of faith") is true doesn't make it so.

A belief that is not logically consistent shows it has falsity to it. That, as a start, should be a discouragement and warning sign that something is wrong with a persons thinking. 

We agree.

No, there is no guarantee that what happens today will happen tomorrow in a universe where random chance happenstance (that is not driven by intent and purpose) is its cause (somehow).

Logic does not require chaotic function from unknown origins.

How do you know the same rate of decay was present in the past?

This is basically 'how do you know something happened when you weren't looking.' The obvious answer is we infer it just like each and everyone of us do everyday. How do you know a tree fell during the night? We can see the tree laying on the ground the next morning. How do you know a car accident happen before you arrived?  We can see the damaged cars in the road, deployed airbags, sirens in the distance, etc. How do we know the decay rate of uranium? We've taken measurements uranium decay, and we've made those measurements in many different conditions (and they've never changed). 

The question isn't why should we use the present as a template to the past, but why shouldn't we? 

The onus is on the believer of tall tales, to prove that they are not tall tales.

Typically believers will always try and avoid this little issue by shifting responsibility.

It's not a case of which came first.

Gods were invented.....Scepticism came later.

Prove the existence of a god and the time worn debate ends......Simple.

Any god will do.....It doesn't need to be the ethereal light skinned American/European version.

A four armed version will suffice.

Faith is what we put our trust in. Faith = trust IN God. 

I think we should all have the discussion [...]

Intelligent design is a belief of all Christians [...]

When you target believers of a young earth you think there is no evidence for such a belief [...]

The misconception propograted online is the Christianity has no evidence. 

If humanity has a beginning there are ultimately one of two alternatives, their cause is something unreasoning and illogical or reasoning being caused them.

Exactly, you infer it. It requires a reasoned faith. You trust that what you believe about the rate of decay is accurate and gives a good representation of what happened. Without God the question is how does something that is devoid of reason, devoid of logic, devoid of intelligence, devoid of intention and agency make anything happen???

You assume that what we see and understand now is what happened in the distant past. 

Interesting how you incorrectly associate atheism with the Big Bang.

I personally, am sceptical of all creation hypotheses.....Scepticism tends to be the result of a lack of real proof.

When I was a child, the ethereal light skinned humanoid version  was the image portrayed in bibles and bible literature..... The time when people attempted to brainwash me with tall tales.

Maybe there is a newer P.C. Semitic version available now. Nonetheless a god created in mans own image.

And Vishnu was an example of an alternative god.....Humanoid, but with modifications.

As ever, I will always accept the idea of a GOD principle....Simultaneously, nothing and everything to do with the above.

I give an example of what someone who rejects a God or creator would have to believe 

Fine, but how do you explain the universe, your existence, morality by tracing it back in time to origins? 

Which is more reasonable to believe for you, God or chance happenstance? 

Faith is what we put our trust in. Faith = trust IN God. 

Yah, I guess we're talking passed one another here because you're not contradicting my view when you say "faith is what we put our trust in". Do you put your trust in faith or god? Because you're saying both...as though faith and God are interchangeable.

I found your devotional excerpts to be in-line with faith as defined in the OP too - ie, faith itself is the important part, and not the reasons for it.

The three aspects of faith "Notitia, Ascension, and Fiducia" (object of trust, conviction, and reliance) support conviction is not a matter of evidence, but of acceptance that the Bible is true. If these words were directed at something for which you had no knowledge or understanding, you, like me, would think them absent a crucial part: information, data, evidence. Notice there is no mention of an informed belief, an informed conviction, because, as far as this devotional is concerned, justified belief isn't important, just belief.

I think we should all have the discussion [...]

...sounds like a plan. Tag me when you get around to it.

Intelligent design is a belief of all Christians [...]

False. Some Christians accept theistic evolution or just plain ol' evolution.  Henderson was targeting individuals who sought to have their ignorances taught in schools...which, as illustrated above, isn't necessarily Christianity in general.

When you target believers of a young earth you think there is no evidence for such a belief [...]

The misconception propograted online is the Christianity has no evidence. 

I accept anecdote, hearsay, revelation, etc., as evidence thus it is not my view that YEC or Christianity "has no evidence". I just happen to find it not very compelling and/or too weak to overcome objective evidence we *all* have access to (this last qualifier is most definitely directed at YEC).

If humanity has a beginning there are ultimately one of two alternatives, their cause is something unreasoning and illogical or reasoning being caused them.

I don't agree to that dichotomy. It could be  the cause of life was absent reason/rationality, or unreasoning/illogical, or with reason/rationality. Not one of these options disallows our reasoning and logical abilities.  Hydrogen nor oxygen are wet, but they make water which is wet.  Must the origin of water be wet? No, of course not.

You are making a mistake in thinking the whole must have the same attributes as the parts (or the origin of the parts).

Exactly, you infer it. It requires a reasoned faith. You trust that what you believe about the rate of decay is accurate and gives a good representation of what happened. Without God the question is how does something that is devoid of reason, devoid of logic, devoid of intelligence, devoid of intention and agency make anything happen???

Same composition fallacy hard at work here. 

You assume that what we see and understand now is what happened in the distant past. 

Uniformitarianism is well accepted and provides us with much explanatory power, Peter. You're arguing an antique viewpoint to maintain, I guess, a (purely subjective) belief in a young Earth that is mortally wounded by uniformitarianism. 

It's not uniformitarianism (which has withstood scrutiny) that's the problem, but a Biblical belief that can't be validated with it.

I give an example of what someone who rejects a God or creator would have to believe 

Someone who rejects your god doesn't have to believe in the Big Bang. There are literally thousands of creation myths in history. 

Fine, but how do you explain the universe, your existence, morality by tracing it back in time to origins? 

Answers to these questions are not required to be skeptical. And saying "jesus" doesn't "explain" anything. 

Which is more reasonable to believe for you, God or chance happenstance? 

False dichotomy. 

Do you believe the universe began (general scientific consensus), or do you believe in an eternal universe? And state some of the conclusive evidence for your premise.

So, everything in the universe has an explanation except the universe itself, the existence of living things, and morality?

You find yourself existing in the universe yet you have no ultimate explanation for it.

 Is it reasonable to believe He is necessary for a reasonable explanation?  

I'm giving you two options. Include a more reasonable one if you think there is a more reasonable explanation than either of these two.

 Is it reasonable to believe He is necessary for a reasonable explanation?  

Without your explanation of WHY he'd be necessary, the answer is short: no,

it is not remotely reasonable to pick a character from a book less than 2000 years old and pretend that's the "because" for every single thing that's ever happened. I'll say it again: it is not remotely reasonable. Why do you think such a character is necessary? 

I'm giving you two options. Include a more reasonable one if you think there is a more reasonable explanation than either of these two.

All I'm saying is this isn't the only two options.

You're adding 'reasonable' in a subsequent post. It's on you to define reasonable, not me to guess what you think reasonable means in this context.

Cosmic origins don't need to necessarily even be 'reasonable.'

Perhaps part of the reason we DON'T quite understand them is because we're constantly trying to graft our current understanding of the world onto them when in fact stuff like black holes and time dilation are on their surface NOT reasonable or logical.

Your big problem is you're trying to graft an illiterate people's understanding of the world around them 2000 years ago to what we know about science today.

In your context, it's more reasonable to believe in demonic possession than it is to believe in germ theory or mental disorders. 

I think therefore I am...That's as certain as I can be.

I don't claim to be Atheist...I prefer not to be a labellist.

I don't necessarily need to explain the universe....Though I do like to contemplate such things....Though the only plausible explanation for the existence of matter, is magic...All other hypotheses fall down before they start.

I exist thanks to my parents...Though whether or not existence is a good thing, I've no idea.

And morals are very much a variable human construct.

You obviously never had bibles with pictures when you were a kid....And we all get brainwashed, it's the nature of the beast....Ultimate questions are not the exclusive remit of Christians.  We're all allowed to have a stab at them, you know.

Maybe newer P.C. picture bibles have a swarthier dark haired version of god.

Vishnu is as reasonable or unreasonable as any god hypothesis.

I don't believe in either, as belief overlooks proof.

Interestingly though, "chance happenstance" is as plausible as any other hypothesis that relies upon a magical beginning....And that's all of them.

Pooooff!....And there was a god.

More aptly, faith in God is what we put our trust in.  Faith has to be directed to something or someone. The Christian faith is directed to God, trusting in God, as I have continually pointed out.

I found your devotional excerpts to be in-line with faith as defined in the OP too - ie, faith itself is the important part, and not the reasons for it.

The reason for our faith in God is confirmed by His word and a realization that there is no higher court of appeal than God. 

Intelligent design is a belief of all Christians [...]

False. Some Christians accept theistic evolution or just plain ol' evolution.  Henderson was targeting individuals who sought to have their ignorances taught in schools...which, as illustrated above, isn't necessarily Christianity in general.

Theistic evolution still has as its cause an intelligent maker. Thus, even theistic evolution has as its creator God.

The ignorance is just as great with naturalism and its use of the scientific method in that it cannot verify origins by repeating these beginnings, and as I said before the premise is that the present is the key to the past.

If humanity has a beginning there are ultimately one of two alternatives, their cause is something unreasoning and illogical or reasoning being caused them.

I don't agree to that dichotomy. It could be  the cause of life was absent reason/rationality, or unreasoning/illogical, or with reason/rationality. Not one of these options disallows our reasoning and logical abilities.  Hydrogen nor oxygen are wet, but they make water which is wet.  Must the origin of water be wet? No, of course not.

You are making a mistake in thinking the whole must have the same attributes as the parts (or the origin of the parts).

Exactly, you infer it. It requires a reasoned faith. You trust that what you believe about the rate of decay is accurate and gives a good representation of what happened. Without God the question is how does something that is devoid of reason, devoid of logic, devoid of intelligence, devoid of intention and agency make anything happen???

Same composition fallacy hard at work here. 

Deflection. When you charge my thinking as fallacious please explain your reasoning, not just the label. I'm so tired of people doing that. 

It's not uniformitarianism (which has withstood scrutiny) that's the problem, but a Biblical belief that can't be validated with it.

Certainly it has withstood your scrutiny. You are piped into the Darwinian dream, built upon the belief of Uniformitarianism. Scientists accepted the Darwins paradigm, despite the many anomalies in his thinking including missing links and gaps in the fossil record.

 

Many accepted Haeckel's Recapitulation theory but it has been largely discredited.

What these theories propose is not what we witness. I see the same kind of beings producing the same kind of offspring.  I don't see apes producing humans or whales producing pigs. Millions and billions of years, I am told, is necessary for that (Once upon a time, a long, long time ago...). That is the presupposition that the theory relies upon - time. Time is the magical ingredient.

I see a variation of birds that have adapted to their environments having different features from other birds but they are still birds. I see a variety of dogs that have adapted to their environments that have different features, but they are still dogs. I witness cross-breeding of dogs, but the end result is still a dog. I don't see a horse and a dog as being able to breed. I see people with different skin pigmentation but they are still human beings. Some are short, others tall in comparison, but they are still the same kind of beings. 

Faith has to have an object that one places trust in. Faith itself is not the object.

It doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with my evaluation of the devotional excerpt...

Your evaluation seems to doubt the evidence.

Intelligent design is a belief of all Christians [...]

False. Some Christians accept theistic evolution or just plain ol' evolution.  Henderson was targeting individuals who sought to have their ignorances taught in schools...which, as illustrated above, isn't necessarily Christianity in general.

Theistic evolution still has as its cause an intelligent maker. Thus, even theistic evolution has as its creator God.

Intelligent Design will obviously need to hold more than just a creator god as it attempts to provide a non-natural alternative for the diversity of life evolution explains. I stand by my point.

Whereas you understand evolution as progressing from a common ancestor, from the simple to the complex, we as Christians understand each to its own kind.

What you view as a weakness, I view as a strength.  The problem isn't ignorance in a position, but how it is treated. That's the point of this thread.  Faith can argue ignorance as knowledge.  Science seeks to diminish ignorance.

Confirmation bias. Also, you are not speaking of science but scientism. It requires blind faith that what you identify as happening in the present was also happening in the past, that the ingredients were similar and recognizable.

I don't follow how that is explained? You provided a label without an explanation. 

I primarily see a misunderstanding of evolution represented here. Other than an example of what uninformed faith can yield, I see little relevance to the OP.

Another copout. You have yet to explain the links in the chain to make evolution possible let alone the agency of it. Follow the chain to its first link, its initial link that began all the other links.

First, what caused the BB? [...]

Again, you have the scenario of the dice rolling themselves without any agency. Then you have the dice producing a fixed result (six, six, six, six, six...) without any intent. You continually look for the explanation within the universe, within the natural realm. So, if the universe had a beginning, there must have been something to cause it, or else it would be self-created, which is a contradiction in terms and self-refuting.

Then from this primordial earth life begins. According to evolution, from the simplest life form diverge other life forms and complexity. From the data (fossils) scientists piece together links based on a desired naturalistic explanation and interpretation. Again, the fossil data does not come stamped, "One billion years old transitional mutation from a whale to a pig." That kind of assumption or inference is read into the data based on a worldview paradigm and similarity between one kind and another, forgetting that we have similarities because we share the same environments and food sources. The two do not necessarily equate.  

Faith has to have an object that one places trust in. Faith itself is not the object.

Yea, I get that.  I was objecting the the way you phrased it which was failing to communicate what you actually meant. It seems you've missed my point, but that's ok.  It's wasn't meant as a gotcha, but constructive criticism. If faith and trust mean the same thing, then 'We put our trust in faith in God' means 'we put our trust in trust in God,' or' we put our faith in faith in god'. It's redundant.

It doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with my evaluation of the devotional excerpt...

Your evaluation seems to doubt the evidence.

My evaluation addressed what was presented: faith with no mention of evidence.

Intelligent design is a belief of all Christians [...]

False. Some Christians accept theistic evolution or just plain ol' evolution.  Henderson was targeting individuals who sought to have their ignorances taught in schools...which, as illustrated above, isn't necessarily Christianity in general.

Theistic evolution still has as its cause an intelligent maker. Thus, even theistic evolution has as its creator God.

Intelligent Design will obviously need to hold more than just a creator god as it attempts to provide a non-natural alternative for the diversity of life evolution explains. I stand by my point.

Whereas you understand evolution as progressing from a common ancestor, from the simple to the complex, we as Christians understand each to its own kind.

It's simply a fact that not all Christians adhere to the strict literalist interpretation of the Bible that you seems to prefer.

That being said, it does seem your particular beliefs (or something close to them) was being mocked by Henderson. So, I'll concede Christianity as you know it was being mocked.

What you view as a weakness, I view as a strength.  The problem isn't ignorance in a position, but how it is treated. That's the point of this thread.  Faith can argue ignorance as knowledge.  Science seeks to diminish ignorance.

Confirmation bias. Also, you are not speaking of science but scientism. It requires blind faith that what you identify as happening in the present was also happening in the past, that the ingredients were similar and recognizable.

Given that I accept evidence which is not scientific in nature, scientism doesn't apply.

Blind faith would mean believing without evidence - do you deny the evidence accumulated within your own life, your parents, grand parents, human history?

Your added wording is redundant, unnecessary. Faith in faith in God or trust in trust in God is not the same as saying trust or faith in God. 

More aptly, faith in God is what we put our trust in.

As I have mentioned before, there are three kinds of faith that I am aware of - blind faith, rational faith, irrational faith. While the biblical faith can be blind, believers are encouraged by God to worship not only with our bodies but with our minds and thinking. The biblical God is a reasoning God.

Whereas you understand evolution as progressing from a common ancestor, from the simple to the complex, we as Christians understand each to its own kind.

It's simply a fact that not all Christians adhere to the strict literalist interpretation of the Bible that you seems to prefer.

Literalistic? You are mistaken. I believe in taking the Bible literally only where the language gives reason to do so. That means literal where literally descriptive, historical narrative, not metaphoric language is used.

Given that I accept evidence which is not scientific in nature, scientism doesn't apply.

Then you cannot prove beginnings scientifically, something I have said all along. 

Blind faith would mean believing without evidence - do you deny the evidence accumulated within your own life, your parents, grand parents, human history?

Some of it I deny, other 'evidence' I find reasonable and affirm. But the point is that neither you, nor I, nor they were there for the beginning of the universe or humanity. Some of the 'evidence' we derive from history is reasonable, other 'evidence' is not.

Again, your starting point or core presuppositions without God is what you build your worldview upon, and your starting point is unreasoning (mindless, blind, random, chance happenstance) and unreasonable. 

Lost half my post due to carelessness and do not feel like responding to the rest of your post presently. (^8

The Christian viewpoint is that God transcends the time, space, matter universe. The argument is that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. Since God is an eternal (no beginning, no end) and transcendent Being (beyond the physical realm), a cause does not apply to God. 

Does the causal tree end at the BB?

So, for you, most things in the universe has an explanation except the universe itself, the starting existence of living things, and morality?

Christian Evidence:

1. The Bible claims it is the word of God.

2. The internal unity and consistency of it of its main themes

3. Prophecy, which is most reasonable to believe based on the historical evidence available.

4. Jesus, His existence, His resurrection, and who He claimed to be. 

5. Explaining our existence and the existence of the universe. 

6. The impossibility of the contrary or the extreme internal inconsistency of other worldviews. 

7. Something outside the box (the universe) as a reasonable explanation for what is in the box.

GOD principle maybe eternal, and as such the fairer skinned guy or the swarthier one are viable hypotheses, nonetheless created in mans own image.

Though it's also pertinent to question whether GOD principle is responsible for humanity or if humanity is responsible for God principle.

"And morals are a variable human construct", means exactly what it says.....Interesting that you can't get your head around that simple statement.

Within your "War and Peace" dissertation post #110 above, the bottom line that I have to accept as the only TRUE CHRISTIAN on this forum, is the FACT that our belief in our serial killing Jesus  and His doctrines of Christianity can ONLY be based on spiritual apprehension, rather than empirical proof!  This is because our JUDEO-Christian Bible is no more valid than the Hebrew Torah, or the Muslim Qu'ran, or the direct writings of the Greek God ZEUS, understood? Yes? Maybe?  

It is also discouraging to me that outside of our JUDEO-Christian Bible, there is not a mention of our brutal serial killer God/Jesus until 70 YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO HIM DYING UPON THE CROSS by proven interpolations within Josephus' writings!  Subsequently, the mentioning of a "Jesus character," NEVER mentioning this Jesus person as Yahweh God incarnate, is littered throughout history by hearsay only without any more proof than proving ZEUS' presence upon the earth!  GET IT?

Therefore, a TRUE Christian needs more than faith to follow the Christian belief!  Understood?