Side-effects of Faith

Originally posted by jaywill

Belief in the existence of God is purely of faith.

So is belief that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.

No it isn't.

(ignoring clouds...) whether or not the sun will raise is absolutely not a matter of faith.

We know what the sun is (a huge star burning hydrogen into helium) and we know that
the earth is orbiting around it due to gravitational attraction (why? because we have
measured it over and over again).
The earth rotates which makes the sun appear to rotate across the sky once a day.

The time and position at which it rises and sets is predictable and has been for tens of
thousands of years.

There are immense mountains of evidence for how and why and when the sun will rise and set
and we have a complete theoretical framework that describes the process in ridiculous detail
and precision.

We do not need or have 'faith' that the sun will rise in the east.

In fact belief that the sun will be rising in the east tomorrow morning is the exact opposite of
a belief based on faith.
It is a belief based solely on evidence and reason, as opposed to belief without evidence or reason.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
clearly the Op has no idea what he is talking about nor the source from which he
gleaned his assertions, here is the actual Biblical definition of faith which thoroughly
and soundly refutes these erroneous assertions,

Faith is evidently a word which has many different possible meanings.
Many words have differing meanings in different circumstances, its just a feature of the English language.

Why do I bring this up?

Because you are arguing that because faith has another different meaning from the one in the OP to which
you assert the arguments in the OP don't apply the argument in the OP is wrong.

This is evidently complete nonsense.

For an example;
A 'Square' can be (among other things) "a regular quadrilateral with four equal sides and four right angles".
And it can also be a person who "respects traditional values" and is a bit boring and un-hip.

If I were to make a post discussing the properties of squares (referring to the geometric object) and you pop
up and say that my argument is wrong because people are not regular quadrilaterals no matter how un-hip they are
then you would be talking utter nonsense.
You are trying to defeat my arguments by using a different meaning for one of the words than the one I am
clearly using.


The meaning of the word 'faith' in the op and this discussion is roughly "belief in things without evidence or proof or
despite evidence or proof to the contrary".
This is faiths most common meaning and it's the meaning being employed here.

The fact that the word faith can have other meanings is utterly irrelevant to the discussion here.

Your argument is fallacious and bunk.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Faith is evidently a word which has many different possible meanings.
Many words have differing meanings in different circumstances, its just a feature of the English language.

Why do I bring this up?

Because you are arguing that because faith has another different meaning from the one in the OP to which
you assert the arguments in the OP don't utterly irrelevant to the discussion here.

Your argument is fallacious and bunk.

I have given a Biblical definition, it should be enough for you to be getting on with at
present, all talk of non religious definitions is pure bunkum and a typical appeals to
semantic arguments so much favoured by the materialist. My argument is solid
sound and incontrovertible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have given a Biblical definition, it should be enough for you to be getting on with at
present, all talk of non religious definitions is pure bunkum. My argument is solid
sound and incontrovertible.

No your argument is nonsense.

We are not talking about whatever you 'biblical' definition of faith is.
We are talking about people believing things without evidence that justifies such belief.
That is one of the meanings of faith and it is the one under discussion.

It is the action we are discussing, not semantics.

The meaning (belief without evidence) is what we are talking about.
We are not talking about whatever meaning you want to attribute to the word.

Your argument is fallacious, wrong, and bunk.

You are arguing semantics and not meaning.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No your argument is nonsense.

We are not talking about whatever you 'biblical' definition of faith is.
We are talking about people believing things without evidence that justifies such belief.
That is one of the meanings of faith and it is the one under discussion.

It is the action we are discussing, not semantics.

The meaning (belief without ...[text shortened]...

Your argument is fallacious, wrong, and bunk.

You are arguing semantics and not meaning.

I have demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that such faith is not really faith at
all, by Biblical definition, why this should have escaped your notice, who can say? sigh.
. . .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that such faith is not really faith at
all, by Biblical definition, why this should have escaped your notice, who can say? sigh.
. . .

I don't give a flying [Rude Word] what you, or the bible, think faith means.

The discussion is about believing things without evidence or justification for doing so.

Which (being one of faiths meanings) we shorten to the word 'faith'.

I don't care if you like that definition of faith or not. It is that definition, that meaning, we are discussing.

So if the bible gives a different definition for faith that is irrelevant because THAT IS NOT THE MEANING
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

We are discussing "belief in things without evidence or justification for doing so".

WE call that FAITH.

If you think faith means something else then bully for you. But that something else is not what we are
talking about.

The bibles definition of faith is irrelevant because that is not the definition we are talking about.
It is the meaning of the word that is in use that we are discussing and the existence of other meanings
is irrelevant to that discussion.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I don't give a flying [Rude Word] what you, or the bible, think faith means.

The discussion is about believing things without evidence or justification for doing so.

Which (being one of faiths meanings) we shorten to the word 'faith'.

I don't care if you like that definition of faith or not it is that definition, that meaning we are discussing.
we are discussing and the existence of other meanings
is irrelevant to that discussion.

the definition that was given by example is not a definition at all, it was and remains
an assumption, now thoroughly refuted, as with all castles made of sand. You people
should really attempt to accurately define your terms before attempting to debate
matters, it will save you no end of trouble.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the definition that was given by example is not a definition at all, it was and remains
an assumption, now thoroughly refuted, as with all castles made of sand. You people
should really attempt to accurately define your terms before attempting to debate
matters, it will save you no end of trouble.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

"1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith."


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Idiom:
in faith
Indeed; truly.
[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fids; see bheidh- in Indo-European roots.]
faith [feɪθ]
n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs the Jewish faith
3. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc.
6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs
7. allegiance or loyalty, as to a person or cause (esp in the phrases keep faith, break faith)
bad faith insincerity or dishonesty
good faith honesty or sincerity, as of intention in business (esp in the phrase in good faith)
interj
Archaic indeed; really (also in the phrases by my faith, in faith)


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

faith

Pronunciation: /feɪθ/
noun
[mass noun]

1complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one’s faith in politicians

2strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof: bereaved people who have shown supreme faith
[count noun] a particular religion: the Christian faith
[count noun] a strongly held belief: men with strong political faiths



Game, set, match.

Originally posted by googlefudge
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

"1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

[b]2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.belief in anything noun] a strongly held belief: men with strong political faiths



Game, set, match.[/b]

yawn, some people prefer to use their own minds, all you have achieved is what i have
stated, you started with an assumption, continued with it and when it was pointed out
to you, make more vain references to dictionary definitions based upon the same
assumption, man, no wonder Socrates partook of the poisoned chalice with glee, he
was tearing the bum oot his toga trying to get through to people. I feel his pain.

Originally posted by googlefudge
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

"1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

[b]2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.belief in anything ...[text shortened]... noun] a strongly held belief: men with strong political faiths



Game, set, match.[/b]

Having just wasted half an hour of work time reading through this, the OP was clearly talking about
belief in something with no supporting evidence for that thing

as highlighted in all the dictionary definitions of the word faith in the Googlefudge's post. Whether you agree that 'faith' is the right word for this or not is irrelevant. It is clearly the intended meaning when used in the OP and is therefore the meaning being discussed.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yawn, some people prefer to use their own minds, all you have achieved is what i have
stated, you started with an assumption, continued with it and when it was pointed out
to you, make more vain references to dictionary definitions, man, no wonder Socrates
partook of the poisoned chalice with glee, he was tearing the bum oot his toga trying
to get through to people.

Your ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity never cease to amaze.

Let me try one more time to penetrate your thick skull.

The point made in the OP (rightly or wrongly) was that people who believe in one thing (god/s religions)
based on faith, (here meaning belief in things without proof or evidence to justify those beliefs, which
as I demonstrated is certainly one of the many definitions and meanings of the word faith.) are more
likely to believe other things without evidence or justification and are less likely to value rationality or reason.


The fact that there are other meanings of the word faith does not in any way undermine this argument and
is irrelevant to any discussion of this argument.


Claiming otherwise is the hight of stupidity and irrationality.

You are in fact a perfect living breathing example of the very point the OP was making...
Well done.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No it isn't.

(ignoring clouds...) whether or not the sun will raise is absolutely not a matter of faith.

We know what the sun is (a huge star burning hydrogen into helium) and we know that
the earth is orbiting around it due to gravitational attraction (why? because we have
measured it over and over again).
The earth rotates which makes the su belief based solely on evidence and reason, as opposed to belief without evidence or reason.

No it isn't.

(ignoring clouds...) whether or not the sun will raise is absolutely not a matter of faith.

I grant that it is not completely exact to belief in God. But it is similar enough for my purpose here which is to show that no one can PROVE the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

We may have confidence that as it has acted in the past it will probably act so tomorrow. That is not proof. That is a trust and a confidence.

It is similar to my confidence that as God acted to keep His promises in history, He will do so again in my relationship with Him.

We know what the sun is (a huge star burning hydrogen into helium) and we know that

Hold it. Yes, that is the current best theory. I remain opened to the possibility that the school text books of my grand children may read -

"As in the past scientists believed thus and such about the sun, it is NOW known that thus and such is the case instead."

Yes, today, the current excepted knowledge is the " the sun is ( a huge star burning hydrogen into helium ... "

I remain open to what science text books may tell us about that sun 200 years from now. Who knows ? Maybe they'll find the sun to be a incredibly microscopic warp in the fabric of space time and some currently unknown process is taking place.

Anyway, today we have confindence that though we did not OURSELVES do the science, we trust that others in the past did it right and their knowledge is trustworthy.

the earth is orbiting around it due to gravitational attraction (why? because we have measured it over and over again).
The earth rotates which makes the sun appear to rotate across the sky once a day.

We know how it behaved in the past. Based on that we suspect the probability is very high it will act similarly tomorrow.

If I wanted to be philosophically rigorous I could insist that that expectation is not proof.

The time and position at which it rises and sets is predictable and has been for tens of thousands of years.

If I want to be philosophically rigorous I could insist that that prediction is not proof. It is a kind of confidence. It is a kind of trust.

When it comes to the existence of God you love to hold the theist's feet to the fire and repeat "You haven't PROVED it yet. No, you haven't PROVED it yet."

Take a bit of your own medicine. You have not PROVED that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Probably, you cannot prove it with rigourous certainty of mathematical precision.

I think the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. I am very confident that it will. Strictly speaking I cannot prove it.

I cannot prove that the earth is really rotating either. It is logically possibly that everything is revolving around in relation to a stationary earth.

I don't believe that. But it is logically possible and I cannot PROVE that that is not the case.

There are immense mountains of evidence for how and why and when the sun will rise and set and we have a complete theoretical framework that describes the process in ridiculous detail
and precision.

Read my keyboard. I BELIEVE and AGREE that there are mountains of evidence for the sun rising the east tomorrow.

Mountains of evidence is not PROOF with the rigorous philosophical exactness of logic.

I have what I think are mountains of evidence that Jesus Christ was more than just a typical man. My evidence is that He is a GOD/MAN.

Can't PROVE it to you though.

We do not need or have 'faith' that the sun will rise in the east.

You have something like "faith". I agree that it is not exactly the same as biblical faith. But you DO have a kind of trust that the work which YOU, I MEAN YOU - GOOGLEFUDGE did not do for yourself, you have confidence that someone else did correctly.

Ptolemy may have spent his life on calculation. Copernicus may have spent his life on calculating these things. And Galileo and Newton may have spent their entire adult lives working out these calculations.

You read it in a book and with something like "faith" (I said "like" faith) you trusted them.

Now we have good evidence that some of these scientists had it right. But we trust them to have got it right. You didn't go over the math yourself I am pretty sure. You took it ready made from you school science book.

And your confidence is confidence and not strict PROOF that the rigorous philosophical logician could demand of you.

I am very confident that the sun will come up in the east tomorrow.
Until it happens I do not have complete proof in a absolute rigourous sense.

In fact belief that the sun will be rising in the east tomorrow morning is the exact opposite of a belief based on faith.
It is a belief based solely on evidence and reason, as opposed to belief without evidence or reason.

God has a track record. Based on that track record I have confidence that when He says "We [Father and Son] will come to him and make an abode with him" the promise is trustworthy.

I cannot prove to you that Christ has come as the Holy Spirit into my spiritual being. But I have as much confidence in it that I have that the sun will come up in the east tomorrow.

Based on the power of His personality I believe His words are more likely to last than the physical universe is:

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matt. 24:35)

If you don't have that confidence, I understand that. That's you. But that Christ is reliable as a path to God has my confidence for sure. And if you think somehow you can prove to me that your athiestic thinking is somehow more rational, more logical, more sober minded, more clear headed, I will be very hard to persuade.

To trust in Christ to me is clear minded, clearly logical, reasonable, believable, trustworthy, and He inspires confidence, if not mathematical proof.

There is such a thing as a person knowing what they are talking about. And I think Jesus of Nazareth was such a Person who knew what He was talking about.

This thread is about the "side effects of faith". Another should be started on the side effects on the human mind of sin. Our thinking many times, has been damaged by sin. We "have eyes to see and see not" sometimes.

And for you to look at Christ and come away without faith does not appear to me to be sober thinking at all. I don't see you as more clear minded. I see you as having a problem in the way you THINK.

I think our minds are in need of healing from the side effects of our sinning.

Originally posted by Penguin
Having just wasted half an hour of work time reading through this, the OP was clearly talking about
belief in something with no supporting evidence for that thing

as highlighted in all the dictionary definitions of the word faith in the Googlefudge's post. Whether you agree that 'faith' is the right word for this or not is irrelevant. It is ...[text shortened]... ded meaning when used in the OP and is therefore the meaning being discussed.

--- Penguin.

Thank you...

Although I am not sure that I should be referred to as 'THE' Googlefudge...

Makes it sound like a title.

Originally posted by Penguin
Having just wasted half an hour of work time reading through this, the OP was clearly talking about
belief in something with no supporting evidence for that thing

as highlighted in all the dictionary definitions of the word faith in the Googlefudge's post. Whether you agree that 'faith' is the right word for this or not is irrelevant. It is ...[text shortened]... ded meaning when used in the OP and is therefore the meaning being discussed.

--- Penguin.

I have proven that it was and remains an assumption, its irrelevant whether it formed
part of the original premise or not, its now no longer relevant, faith has been redefined
by the Biblical definition as demanding reason.