01 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI think your argument is a good one, as an atheist if I was confronted with good evidence that a view I held was wrong, I could admit that I might be wrong , adapt or change that view and nurse my bruised ego.For someone of strong faith, to even contemplate the possibility that the faith they hold may be wrong involves a huge emotional cost.Strong faith allows the individual to feel safe and secure,to be an atheist can be quite the opposite.I oppose the a god based faith because in the end I think we have only ourselves to rely on and the sooner that we realise this,the sooner we might take responsibility for our actions.
I appreciate that.
However there are people, even on these forums, who seem to believe that having
faith in something, that believing something really really hard, IS evidence.
A nonsense that you don't subscribe to (although you have your own nonsense which I will get to)
but that many people apparently do.
Also there are plenty of theists ...[text shortened]... hment.
And no god worthy of worship would require belief without any evidence.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Feb 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd here we have a perfect example of the nonsense that was being discussed in the
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(Hebrews 11:1 KJV)
first few posts of this thread...
RJHinds using the bible (not evidence) as evidence for faith being evidence.
Why because he has faith in the bible...
Hello Mr circular logic.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by OdBodOnce you take responsibility for your actions, then what? You die? 😏
I think your argument is a good one, as an atheist if I was confronted with good evidence that a view I held was wrong, I could admit that I might be wrong , adapt or change that view and nurse my bruised ego.For someone of strong faith, to even contemplate the possibility that the faith they hold may be wrong involves a huge emotional cost.Strong faith allow ...[text shortened]... on and the sooner that we realise this,the sooner we might take responsibility for our actions.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by KewpieDepends on the definition.
I think faith must require a lack of evidence supporting that faith, because faith by its very definition must have no basis, it's unsupported belief.
faith can be roughly defined as "Belief in a proposition with out evidence to justify that
belief or despite evidence that contradicts it".
Which applies to beliefs held in the absence of evidence supporting them and beliefs held
despite evidence contradicting them.
However it can also apply to beliefs insufficiently supported by evidence to rationally justify
them.
There are however other uses of the word faith for which the above need not apply.
For example faith can be another term for religion, which could potentially (theoretically) be
evidence based. And thus would not by definition require an absence of evidence.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudge...I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Until tomorrow, there is no evidence that I'm right. Is that faith, that I believe the sun will rise?
For example faith can be another term for religion, which could potentially (theoretically) be
evidence based. And thus would not by definition require an absence of evidence.[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by apathistIt's not faith in the sense of blind faith which I generally define as "belief in a proposition
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Until tomorrow, there is no evidence that I'm right. Is that faith, that I believe the sun will rise?
without evidence to justify such belief or in the face of evidence that contradicts it".
Faith can sometimes be used interchangeably with trust.
And you can make faith work in the sentence "I have faith that the universe will continue
to function as it has always done" or some such.
However while you could use the word faith like that (I don't and dislike that kind of usage)
you are attributing a very different meaning than either faith meaning religion or faith as I
just defined above.
The word might be the same but the concepts and meanings behind it are very different.
I generally stick to only using the word faith to mean blind faith as I defined above.
This avoids/reduces confusion and helps mitigate against/prevent people from coming
back at me with one of the other potential meanings and conflating the two.
02 Feb 13
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistWell, no.
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Until tomorrow, there is no evidence that I'm right. Is that faith, that I believe the sun will rise?
Your hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow has countless examples of being proven correct. True, someday it probably won't, but for the most part, your theory that the sun will rise tomorrow is correct with a vanishingly small margin of error. In other words, it is a safe bet. Faith is not supposed to be a safe bet, and if it were, it would fail to remain a question of faith.
That's what a lot of people don't get. When asked if they have a faith, some people say "if God came up to me and proved himself, then I would have faith." Or "yeah, I believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer."
That is not faith. Faith is belief without proof.
02 Feb 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat sounds reasonable, but let's not throw faith out by assuming that reason plays no part in the assembling of a faith.
I generally stick to only using the word faith to mean blind faith as I defined above.
This avoids/reduces confusion and helps mitigate against/prevent people from coming
back at me with one of the other potential meanings and conflating the two.
True, my faith has no proof, no evidence. However, there is no proof or evidence against it, either. Given certain events in my life, and even though I have a solid education in the sciences, my faith is NOT unreasonable. I didn't just shake a bingo ball and accept whatever deity fell out. My faith is not "blind", nor is it random.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Feb 13
Originally posted by SuzianneActually faith (as we both define it) is by definition unreasonable and irrational.
That sounds reasonable, but let's not throw faith out by assuming that reason plays no part in the assembling of a faith.
True, my faith has no proof, no evidence. However, there is no proof or evidence against it, either. Given certain events in my life, and even though I have a solid education in the sciences, my faith is NOT unreasonable. I didn't ...[text shortened]... a bingo ball and accept whatever deity fell out. My faith is not "blind", nor is it random.
And I am not assuming that I have proved it... although you have a tendency to run away every time I do.
And actually there is a mountain of evidence and even proof that your beliefs are in fact untrue.
And that your god does not exist.
However I will play along...
So how did you decide that out of the INFINITE number of possible gods that you could have chosen to believe
in (and ignoring for a moment the option of not believing in any of them) that the god of the bible (or at least your
version of it) was the one that was real and that all the others were fake?
I am really curious to see if you can cite anything other than the fact that you are embedded in a country that
majority believes in the god of the bible.
If you were born in India you would probably have become a Hindu or Buddhist, in the middle east a Muslim Or Jew,
in the USA you became a Christian.
What made you pick the bible god that wasn't due to the fact that you were brought up in a majority populated Christian
country?