Do Atheists Have Faith? & How to Interpret the Bible with Frank Turek

Do atheists have faith? How do we interpret the bible? Interview with Dr. Frank Turek

Next [Un]Apologetic Evangelism Conference:

[markryan]

If you think there is an "immaterial realm", just prove it.
Not believing in your "immaterial realm" isn't "faith"..its rejecting your unsupported assertion.

[utopiabuster]

As a fellow squid I have absolutely no choice but to give Frank Turek my most crisp hand salute of honor.

[MyContext]

The moment ANY depiction is outside of what is actually known as an aspect of reality, it is rationally fiction until evidence (demonstrable cause/effect linkage) is shown.

[ShannonQ]

That's weird...I thought faith was trust 🤔 guess it isn't 🤷‍♀️

[WhtetstoneFlunky]

What was with that comment "torturing babies for fun". What is with that? See, that is the kind of crap that annoys a lot of people, theists, atheist, everyone. No place for that kind of dishonest stupidity thrown out there to trigger emotions.

[utopiabuster]

I've already made a comment here which Eric was kind enough to acknowledge, but after reading some of the comments from detractors, nonbelievers and down right haters I did my contemplation on the matter and typically the Holy Spirit provided me with His usual spot on inspiration.

Frank Turek and I are Navy Vets and so is Matt Dillahunty and in many respects we each have similar experiences outside of our military service to some degree. Both Dillahunty and Turek had employment difficulties. While I have my own opinions as to why so many veterans have employment difficulties it can be said that Dillahunty and Turek took similar paths in order to cope.
Dillahunty states he entered into seminary and became an Atheist advocate, magician and mentalist as a result. Frank Turek successfully obtained a degree in theological philosophy, is a successful author and public advocate for Christianity as a result.

I was thinking, (contemplating), about this apparent dichotomy when an epiphany struck me which appears to suggest atheist and theist, Dillahunty and Turek have much more in common than is initially apparent.

First, atheism is in a decline of their own making. Don't be fooled as anyone, like myself, who's been involved in the internet can attest to I have never heard anyone define themselves as a "none" or "unaffiliated". Neither have I personally come across anyone defining themselves as a none or unaffiliated. (watch a mass of Discord betas now claim "noneism")
According to stats Atheist are the least liked and least trustworthy of all minority groups according to the last comprehensive study done in 2016.

All this of their own making and here's why;

Consider;
Ricard Dawkins, “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored.
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Indeed;
"...nothing but pitiless indifference(nihilism)."

Then consider;
Psalm 8:3-9 3When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? 5You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor. 6You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet: 7all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild, 8the birds in the sky, and the fish in the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas. 9LORD, our LORD, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
Indeed,
"...what is mankind that you(God) are mindful of them(us), human beings that you care for them(no matter what)?"


Just think, if there were no atheist or theist. No consideration to the existence of God whatsoever and you happened across these two remarks I cited without knowing their origin or authorship, which would you more likely display in your home?

I think God would rather us fight Him than leave us with the indifference Dawkins espouses.

So, Thank you, Atheist, for acknowledging God with your fight against Him.

Peace and God Bless.

[NeoDemocedes]

Oh how Frank loves to play word games. I find two definitions of 'faith'. Frank has invented his own to serve his own purpose.
Faith 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

[Nicklolsen]

Frank makes faith seem like a bad thing

[wimahlers]

I "STOP"d and figured out that just about any biblical passage can mean just about anything when you interpret to fit your personal bias.

[doctorwebman]

I am an atheist, and I have no faith in anything. Apparently, some theists are oblivious to the fact that you can't have faith in a non-belief. Faith is for beliefs, not non-beliefs.

[chimpanzeethat]

It depends on what you mean by "faith". Words have uses as much as they do meanings. It depends on context.
Evolution, for example, has one meaning in science and it can also be used in a colloquial sense to describe the change over time of pretty much anything you like. In science evolution is defined as the change of allele frequency in populations over generations, but in everyday language you could talk about the evolution of rock music or the evolution of boxing.
If faith simply means trust then it can still be used in different contexts. Faith based on evidence or faith despite a lack of evidence.
Religious faith has always had a connotation of being without evidence. Or flimsy evidence at best.
Religious people will insist that there is evidence for the things that they have faith in, but when you ask them what that evidence is they fail to provide any and then rely on philosophical arguments.

[christthinker]

Eric you got to meet Frank Turek? I didn’t think I could like you more.

[barryjones]

Even if atheists were exercising "faith", not all faiths are equally blind. Trusting one's senses to the point of adopting empiricism might require some "faith" (i.e., faith that your 5 physical senses aren't deceiving you), but is nowhere near as blind as the level of faith required to adopt "Christianity". So even if atheists are exercising faith, their position is more clearly grounded in the real world, than Christian faith is.


Especially given how weak the arguments are from Licona, Habermas and Craig on the alleged historicity of Christ's resurrection.

[chrisv]

So are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? When apologists define faith it's "trust with evidence" when it refers to Christianity? But when the word is used to describe the mindset of non believers it's trust without evidence? If you want to define athiests as having faith in things than by your own definition athiests have evidence for their "faith".

[wimahlers]

So many things wrong in just 2 minutes. But let's start with something concrete … I know there is evidence for macro evolution but what evidence is there against macro evolution that mister Turek is referring to?

For those who know what he is referring to, please specify.

[markryan]

Macroevolution is demonstrably true, so it has nothing to do with faith.

[kurtgundy]

This is good. But predictably there will be some irrational people who object. What, you mean we should interpret it in context? Ridiculous!!

[discipleaj]

Brother Eric, I've always maintained that the Bible is literally true in the proper context. Although this is a short answer, it does allow me to further explain when questioned or whilst witnissing.

This might be a stretch for you to answer (only due to me not having written enough detail), but would you say that is a sound way with which to reason and explain from?

[eig]

Funny how you don't correct him, when he uses faith as belief without evidence. But you'll berat AronRa to death, for saying faith is belief without "scientific" evidence for an hour and 40 minutes.

[astralsentient]

But didn't you just have a video criticizing Aron Ra for having a wrong definition of faith? Now Turek goes by the same usage as Ra in this video (believing something without any evidence for it) and it's no problem.