please be so good as to elucidate these statements.

Speaking only for myself, you are not clarifying anything. Indeed, you are most decidedly confusing the issue for me.
With respect, if you really do have a message to get across, may I suggest you get off your high horse and provide lucid comments with clarifying examples rather than the almost entirely condemnatory babble you have indulged in up to now.

Faith is ignorance, it is the blindfold over the eyes of truth and reason. A person with faith either is too stupid to understand something, or refuses to accept it. Faith is the one great obstacle toward a free society. If you want a faith filled society, go to Iran.

didnt know there were so many atheists around here 0.0

pretty scary

There's no need to pretend respect for something you consider babble. Babble ought not to be respected (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:16). That said, I am quite unsure what you found confusing. Could you point to something specific I have said and explain what is confusing about it?

The latter statement presupposes and relies upon the former. Science supposes a great many things which are rationally unjustified within the scientific worldview. For example, the uniformity of nature. If evolutionary theory relies upon science, and science rests upon rationally unjustified (ie, irrational) presuppositions, then evolution is irrational. If you're unsure why the uniformity of nature is rationally unjustified, I would recommend simply trying to rationally justify it.

I really don't believe I could as essentially the whole tenor of the presentation of your arguments seems to suggest you believe that the majority of the inhabitants of this planet to be incompetent, imbecilic morons who are not even remotely able to grasp the biblical message which is apparently so obvious to you.
Therefore, as I have already requested, can you please summarize your message, without resorting to personal invective if possible, in less than three lines.
I believe I have stated my situation clearly, genuinely and honestly. In essence, I am confused that many religious friends (and these are clean-living, hard-working, happy people that I very much respect despite your very negative view of their mental abilities) purport to have an undying, absolute faith in not just the existence , but the supreme benevolence of God.
However, none of them has been able to convince me of the validity of this faith. Indeed, it seems to me no more than a rather childish belief in a kind of fairy-story where all of the faithful will live happily ever after.
Now, I don't claim to be any more intelligent than these people so why can I not share in this wonderful, happiness-inducing faith? What am I missing?

No doubt they do, but this does not mean that they have what the Bible describes as faith. As I have said, the Bible speaks of faith as a rational assurance and conviction; a knowledge of God, which is perfectly defensible (see 'The Mind Of Christ' written by myself). It commands Christians to destroy every pretension and argument raised against the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5), and to be always ready to give a defense for their faith (1 Pet 3:15). Biblical faith is most certainly not a "rather childish belief". Therefore, if a person professes to be a Christian, but has a "rather childish belief" as opposed to a rational knowledge of and trust in God and his word, and if this person is unable to offer even an adequate defense for his faith, let alone destroy unbelieving arguments, then he is most certainly at best a poorly educated and thus immature Christian—and possibly not a Christian at all. I am not attempting to rag on your friends; I am simply stating the biblical position. That said—

I do believe this, because again it is the biblical position; for "the fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Ps 14:1). Paul explains why—

Notice that the natural person, the unbeliever, is unable to understand the things of the Bible, because they are spiritually discerned, and he does not have this ability because of being non-spiritual, since he does not have the Spirit of God. And, given this, please take care to note also that I am not suggesting that the biblical message is "so obvious" to me because of my ability, because before I was regenerated by God I was equally unable to understand or believe the things of God. My faith is by no means my own doing; my understanding of God's word is by no means by merit of my own intelligence.

What makes you think faith is the gift in Eph 2:8? I see salvation as the gift in those verses or even grace but they come 'through faith' which is not the focus there. Faith is the means, not the end, therefore it's not the gift. I know that it's a popular teaching that faith is the gift, but so is calvinism (TULIP), sinful nature, spiritual death, immortality before 'the fall', confession of sin for forgiveness for a believer, and the kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven being the same throughout the 'synoptic gospels', and none are scriptural either.

Jesus founding and perfecting our faith has nothing to with faith being something we can work up to release to God. Something we control on a spiritual whim. As if in some moment of need we work up something that was not already there.

Abraham is the model given in the bible for faith and he simply believed what God said and it was counted as righteousness. That was/is faith. To say God gives us faith, as in something more than belief, so we can believe is calvinistic because some are given it and some are not, yet we know he died for all and it is his will that none perish, so if that's true, and we know it is, then he gives everyone faith at some point and all are saved, but that is not true so faith is not the gift because the gifts and callings of God are without repentance! One can reject salvation but how could anyone reject faith? Irresistible grace is bunk!

We can stir up our spirit and God can stir up our faith as seen many, many times in the bible but without God we would stir up our belief towards nature, astrology, ourselves, or a tree stump. That's what makes faith of him, is it is his revealing of himself to us. We can, as believers, begin that process by faith because he wants fellowship but it wouldn't exist without him.

He put Adam in the garden and said 'don't eat that tree'. As long as Adam lived by faith, believing what God said, all was well.

Faith is belief in his word/s.

And just what is "scary" about rationality?

Don't let your religion's dogma color your view of reality- atheists are not people you should be scared of, unless your greatest fear is choosing reason over faith.

I quite agree that faith is simply belief—a justified and true belief. I was not intimating that it was more than that. However, regardless of your interpretation of Ephesians 2:8, the fact remains that the natural man cannot understand the things of God because he does not have the spirit of God (see my post above). Therefore, God must incline himself toward us before we can incline ourselves toward him. To suppose otherwise is to ignore God's total sovereignty over all that happens. If you believe in libertarian free will I would invite you to consider my article 'Annotating The Catholic Encyclopedia: Free Will'. If you feel you are able to offer refutations, I think it would be more appropriate to respond there, or to create a new thread. I am happy to continue this conversation on these forums, but since we appear to agree on the basic nature of biblical faith, I don't think we should get off topic in here.

Yes, I have mostly agreed with you so far and that has been refreshing. It is very rare I agree with others theology in any area. I will read your article and post my thoughts there, if required. Thx!

In bold and underlined above is what I am addressing now.....
God has always inclined himself toward man. We all have existed in an environment of faith in regards to God. You say the natural man can not understand the things of God because he does not have the Spirit of God, but the scripture you are referring to is about the spirit of man understanding God. Adam was not born again. He had a spirit, not the Spirit. There's many passages that show mans spirit, alive and well, functioning with God. A man focused on the carnal won't hear or see and is blind. A man focused on the spiritual can and will. God's sovereign will is that none persish but that all come to everlasting life. Since most do perish, his will is not being done. Why is that? Few men are spiritually minded, most are carnal, but all are created in his image with a spirit that is eternal that is intended to have fellowship with him.
There's the Lord of the harvest standing over the harvest and seeing the need, seeing ripe fruit that is about to fall off the tree and rot, and what did he do? Turned to the disciples and said "this is your responsibility, if you do not pray and you do not go and harvest the field, the fruit will perish". So exactly why do people go to hell? Why do some people never hear the gospel? If we hold to reformed theology we say, "God will raise someone up, if I don't pray and I don't go someone else will because it is God's will that certain people will be saved". But does that sound like what Jesus just said? Not at all. Does it fit any scripture at all to compelling, convincing, persuading men concerning Jesus? What nut is going to put their life on the line and take up their cross and follow Jesus if some of the lost are saved according to God's will alone without the obedience of men praying and going and harvesting? Reformers do not understand the authority and dominion given to man.People like taking what Jesus said there completely out of context but he's responding to the disciples statement that the devils are subject to them. He sent the seventy out 2 by 2 and gave them the authority that was given him as the second Adam victorious over sin the devil the flesh and this world that the first Adam lost. People think the cross gave Jesus the right to rule and reign but he was given all power and authority before the cross. The cross, burial, resurrection, ascension, and seating was for us to partake in that same restoration to what the first Adam lost. It was God's way of making permanent what he gave the seventy temporarily. The seventy exercised the dominion and authority man had not had since the fall of Adam and Jesus was sitting somewhere in prayer looked up and saw Satan the accuser of the brethren, who was continually before the throne of God, get kicked out of heaven by the dominion and authority of man on earth. I'm not saying this is the permanent kicking out of Satan, but it is what the bible says.

Reformed theology focuses on the cross and stays at the cross when we are both way past it and way before it. If it is God's will that none perish but we know many do perish, is God not having his will accomplished? Is God handicapped? Is God limited? Is he limited to the prayers of men, whom he has given all dominion power and authority? God has chosen to operate within parameters he has set forth that prevent him from forcibly accomplishing his will that non perish because we know many will perish. If a sovereign God has a will, and that will does not get done, then that sovereign God has sovereignly designed a system wherein he has limited himself. The only way a sovereign God can have a will and that will not get done is that he has placed that will in the hands of another, and someone else has failed.It looks like he put the disciples in charge of the harvest. It looks like he said that field is yours as man with all power and dominion in the earth, go harvest the fruit. Now if you don't have enough resources come and ask me and I'll send more laborers. If you still don't have enough come and ask and I'll send more laborers, but I am delegating this harvest into your hands, I am out of the picture, except if you need assistance you let me know.

I don't think you understand Reformed theology if this is what you think it implies. Again, though, this is not on topic and I don't wish to derail the thread. I think it would be better to start a new one if you feel the need.

They certainly use the word "faith" to overcome an inability to explain what to me are boundless reasons to doubt the existence of a caring God (they actually use the word fé which is the Portuguese equivalent). I am not in a position, however, to decide whether they are truly justified in their use os this word although it does sound OK to me.
This suggests that only a very small minority of us humans are actually going to be "saved". This comes across to me as what I would expect from a cruel and unjust dictator rather than from a caring, loving father-like being that our "Western" God is reputed to be.
What about a child that dies young or somebody with mental deficiencies? Are they going to be condemned to eternal torment because they were unable to grasp the complications of theology?
I have to say that up to now, you yourself have been unable to "destroy unbelieving arguments" on my part. Does this, therefore, make you "possibly not a Christian at all"?

Just to clarify that you were here you were responding to my belief that you saw the majority of the inhabitants of planet Earth as imbeciles.

.
It seems, therefore, that I fall into this category of natural persons because I really do not understand the things of the Bible. I believe I can explain the whole need for religion as an attempt (very successful in many people) to overcome our instinctive terror of death.
The impression I repeatedly get from "devout" Christians is that you simply must put aside all rational, logically-based arguments in order to accept the word of God. Doesn't this imply becoming irrational and illogical? Or is this just my "natural person" manifesting itself again?
Quite frankly, up to now, despite my best efforts to understand this stuff, it really just sounds like undiluted hogwash.

I'm not sure why you objected to my definition then... it was not meant to put faith in a perjoritive light. Faith is belief that does not hinge on emperical data. You add that it's a justified and true belief, which is compatible ... but a moot point.

It's silly though to attack science as a means to "prove" the correctness of your religion. Even if science is wrong, your religion might still be wrong as well. Had you considered that?

Worse, many if not all scientific pressupositions that you are attacking are also used in practicing Christianity. If you truly don't believe in the uniformity of nature, how do you know that what you read is an accurate representation of the data in the Bible? Perhaps the Bible is different each time you pick it up. Perhaps Satan fiddles with the light (transmitting the character data) before it enters your eye. I mean, if you want to be a skeptic, that's fine... but skepticism should be applied to a belief system uniformly .. not just to the beliefs that are different from your own. Otherwise, it's just bias.

Although I don't know what to make of your claims that you have supernatural powers of Biblical interpretation. I was a fundamentalist Christian for half my life. My skepticism about the Bible came directly from my interest in it... Claiming supernatural powers is a big red flag that you've closed your ears to anything anyone else has to say

First of all, I think your understanding of science, its aims and methods, and, ultimately, its value, is rather limited at present. For starters, feel free to feed your brain by reading this, this and this.
Hopefully, this will deepen your understanding of what science claims it can and cannot provide. Philosophy of science is a very rich and complex field of study, so there's no rush

Secondly, with your point about the principle of uniformity of nature, and irrational presuppositions, I take it you mean to say that science uses some assumptions which cannot be directly proven to be true. While this, at first, may seem like a good point to make, by now, if you've done your suggested reading, you will realise this is not as big an issue as you think it to be. (I suppose that, ultimately, it boils down to a kind of solipsistic argument, which, while highly entertaining in its own right, is not a very practical one.)

Thirdly, and this is the thing that really baffles me. How can you justify it to yourself, intellectually, to set such high and rigorous standards to the validity of science on the one hand, while, on the other, you quote at length from a book of obscure provenance, using words like truth and fact in the same breath. By what rationale do you assume this book to be a reasonable basis for making pronouncements on the nature of reality? Furthermore, even if one were to assume this book to have any authority, it seems to me to have almost as many interpretations as it has readers, as evidenced plainly on this forum, your own discussion on faith being a particular case in point.

It's what I know very well, so I see no need for a thread.

True, although even a poorly educated or immature Christian is still a Christian, and thus still saved. However, I made no comment on children or the mentally deficient—and neither does the Bible seem to.

How it seems to you is not necessarily indicative of how it is. How will you accuse God of cruelty or injustice if it is true that a majority of people are not saved? Firstly, they are damned because of their own sin, and so he is perfectly just to not save them. But secondly, since God is just and holy by definition, if your personal understanding of justice and holiness differs with his, you are wrong.

Sorry, I didn't see any. Could you point them out to me?

I was.

Again, this is simply nonsense. A professing Christian who believes this is at best stupid and ignorant. The Bible, the word of God, is the precondition for rational thought. Without objective revelation, we have nothing but our own subjective, rationally unjustified perceptions and beliefs.

It seems strange to me that you have not noticed the category error you're committing. You are in effect sayng that, since the assumption of the uniformity of nature is unjustified in a scientific worldview, it must therefore be unjustified in any other worldview. Why? The Christian worldview justifies the principle of nature's uniformity perfectly well by merit of nature being caused and continually upheld by a rational, consistent God. The problem here is that scientists cannot rationally justify their belief in one principle or another. Christians can, so there is no need to suggest that they ought to be skeptics.

As for supernatural powers of interpretation, I think that such a description is something of a misrepresentation of my statement. I stated that I am reborn of the Spirit, which is certainly supernatural, and that I am therefore able to understand the things of God through this supernatural influence—but to describe this as a supernatural "power" suggests more than is warranted. The Apostles and prophets had supernatural powers of interpretation (2 Pet 1:20). I do not.

I'm sorry, but no. You have grossly misunderstood the implications of the biblical teaching on God's sovereignty. Your misunderstanding is frightfully common, though. I feel inclined to refute it at more length simply because of that.

I have stated what most 'believers' do with the teachings of reformed theology, which is nothing regarding witnessing . What we do is what matters, not what we say, so it makes no difference what the intent of the calvinistic/reformed teachers is, or what they say. It only matter what the result is. You have it backwards. My view is an extremely small percentage. I am 0.5 point TULIP, yet I'm not an armenian (I hate labels btw but I say that because everytime I say I'm 0.5 point TULIP I am labeled armeinian). I know calvinist and reformers claim to be evangelistic, but their false doctrine of election kills their empty words.

If you believe the principle is in fact reasonable, why on earth are you attacking it? It's a shared assumption then.

A scientist may have any reasons for assuming it (or even rejecting it), on both religious or non-religious grounds.

I've lost you completely. You are saying that what believers do as a consequence of their doctrine determines whether or not the doctrine is correct? So, if Christians believe as the Corinthians did that, since they are free from the law, they are free to sin all they like, it is not true that they are free from the law? This simply doesn't make sense. The logical extreme of your position is that the Bible is false, since people misunderstand and misapply it all the time. Jesus, on the other hand, did not blame Scripture when people misunderstood it, but the people themselves.

I'm also kinda curious—what the heck does it mean to believe 0.5 points of TULIP?

You seem to be equivocating again. It is reasonable given a Christian worldview. It is most certainly not reasonable given a scientific/empirical/naturalistic/materialistic one.