Is faith irrational? Do you need proof against something not to believe in it?

It seems as though everything you are saying revolves around the concept of proof. The burden of proof, what supports proof, what disproves, and the need for proof to believe in something.

Proof, and the scientific method for discovering it, are all we have when it comes to matters of fact like trees, rocks, gases, evolution, etc. Proof doesn't mean a thing for subjective measures of value.

How does one "prove" that murder is wrong? Some atheists like to talk about purely utilitarian and humanistic systems of ethics. Murder is wrong because it causes pain, or because it causes social unrest, etc. But then, why is causing pain wrong? Why is disrupting society wrong? "Because then it causes people to suffer," they might say. Why is causing people to suffer wrong? At that point, there is often an appeal to the biological evolution of empathy. But we also evolved to dislike bitter foods - yet no one thinks that eating them is "wrong".

There is a difference between mere personal distaste and abstract moral outrage. But that internal sense of justice, without which we would be psychopathic monsters, is itself completely separate from "proof". Societies keep coming back to the Golden Rule, not because it "makes sense" - it doesn't, not by any practical standards, which is why it's such a big deal when someone comes along preaching it - but because something completely outside the scope of empiricism, something entirely within our subjective existence, tells us that it's what's Right.

Some how you lost me in there. From what I can tell, you should be able to put that into a very concise sentence or two.

I think there's a lot of proof for the existence of many "gods", starting with the existence of many theologies that have survived thousands of years of criticism from non-believers and coexistence with each other, and the historical records left behind by the adherents to those particular belief systems. What doesn't exist is 100% falsifiable proof, as required to fall under the auspices of science, of the physical manifestation of any particular "god". However, science isn't the only academic school of thought, and if you limit your thinking to just one school then you confront issues from a biased perspective. That's not necessarily bad if you're willing to concede it when required. Self-righteous bigots like Dawkins are unwilling and just generally make arses of themselves. Sure, they fool a few simple minds and make a lot of money in the process selling books and appearing on talk shows and conducting public speeches in order to proselytise (and then ironically condemn particularly Christians for doing similar things). If you're going to follow that kind of teaching however, be aware you're participating in your own religion.

On faith, I believe in the Eiffel Tower. I haven't seen it, I haven't touched it, I haven't heard it, smelt it, nor tasted it. I've read about it in books, same as religious folks have read about their deity in books. I've seen photos, same as cave paintings or other religious artwork. I've seen likenesses (replicas, models) much as some religions have statues, idols, and other symbols. I know some people who claim to have seen it (much as some religious people claim to have seen one thing or another). My belief in the Eiffel Tower is no more or less rational than a belief in "god". Should you share my belief in the Eiffel Tower also, understanding why you do so should help you understand why your family believe in God.

Also, reading a dictionary may help understand why it is difficult to have a rational discussion about the existence of God :)

If you say the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, then in your family YOU have the burden of proof because the generally accepted truth is that God exists. =) All your arguments go both ways. There is no definitive proof for or against God, so it is no more or less rational to believe in either one, nor does one person have more responsibility than another to be able to prove his unprovable position.

But since there is no proof either way, either belief is just faith combined with your natural way of seeing the world. If God's existence seems obvious to you, then your faith allows you to believe something that cannot be proven. And if atheism seems like the obvious choice, then your faith lets you believe something else that can also not be proven. Ultimately it comes down to whichever system seems most logical to you.

You have to decide whether you want them to believe what you believe, or for you to be convinced of what they believe, or simply for them to accept and respect that you don't believe what they believe. Because your discussions need to take significantly different routes depending on which outcome you're hoping to reach.

Paul probably said, " For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?"

To answer your questions. 1- Faith IS irrational. 2- No you don't need proof against something not to believe in it.

Your belief is uniquely yours. I read and hear all kinds of things every day that I don't believe. No one has proved or disproved them to me. But I make that judgement call inside my own head. Based on experience? intellect? gut feeling? the source? Who knows? I either believe or I don't. Some times you even see things that you don't believe. You can't have a real good time at the movies unless you suspend your disbelief. Faith however is probably not the same as believing in something. I don't think I ever really believed in Santa Claus, but I hoped he was real. I may even have acted as if I believed in Santa Claus (part of the time anyway... well ok, a really teeny, tiny part of the time) in hope i would be one of the "nice" ones to get the gifts. Faith is probably better described as acting out or testing your belief. No one can make you, convince you, reason with you, rationalize with you, or trick you into having faith. They can do those things to influence your beliefs. You formulate your beliefs based on the best information available to you. Faith comes from somewhere else...

I don't not believe in God. I have faith in his promises.

...I'm giving you a chance to change my mind

Only you can change your mind. It is entirely your responsibility.

...belief in something for which there is no proof is by definition irrational.

I hate to pick nits but that really is not the definition of irrational.

Edit: If you are going to downmod me you should at least present a dictionary definition that contradicts my assertion above.

** My argument was that because the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, it's irrational to believe in something until it's proven true and that not believing in it, but knowing that it's possible that it could exist is the most rational position. What do you think? Which one of us is thinking irrationally? I want logical, rational responses that either strengthen my argument, or prove it wrong.**

I think that the only rational way of thinking is that there is no way of proving that there is a God. Even if God would reveal himself physically, it would be hard for him to prove that he is God and not another being (antichrist?) with God like knowledge and powers. There is no way to prove that there is no God. There are things that we are not capable of understanding. If everything had a beginning then possibly God was the beginner but was God always there. It's impossible for me to understand how something (God)did not have a beginning. So I can never be anything but an agnostic unless God himself gives me the answers.

(next paragraph)

No sorry, I can't agree with you here, this is clearly the same paragraph.

They kept bringing up the argument that me not believing in something because there is no proof for it is just as rational as believing in something for which there is no proof.

They are correct here, and this is why atheists in this specific subreddit often claim "I don't believe there is or is not a god 100%, I lean towards the idea that there is no god," but then in their next post talk about how they know there is no god (and try to use science, "reason" and "rational thought" to back up this claim.

Atheists here want to make those who are Christians look foolish by making them say "yes, I believe absolutely in God," they will then throw the idea that nothing can ever be 100% certain in their face. But then they will talk about how their is no god and you can tell from their posts that they absolutely do not believe in god.

One big indicator here is that they call themselves "atheists" and not "agnostics." Agnostic is Greek for "do not know," much like "atheist" is greek for "no god."

You are being as equally intellectually dishonest as your family, but your pride might not ever let you admit that. You might claim that science says there is no god, but science doesn't say such a thing. In fact, a theist could argue that the Big Bang is proof that a "creator" exists because the universe runs on cause and effect, and the universe had to have a cause.

My argument was that because the burden of proof is on the person making the claim

And you were the one making the claim that "there is no god," so instead of shirking your duties by saying "prove to me there is a god," prove to us that there is no god. I'm in the Christianity subreddit, I don't have to prove anything because I don't have to make any claims. If I were to go into the atheism subreddit and claim "there is a god," then I would be expected to be brought to task on the subject and to back up my points.

[deleted]

Everyone has faith in something.