Froggy
New Member
@froggy
Posts: 32
 
|
Post by Froggy on Feb 25, 2017 19:53:20 GMT
Defining terms is pretty good way to proceed with an argument, and you've been resisting providing a clear definition of "faith." A practical example: A guy comes to me wanting to wager on the roll of a fair six-sided die. He's convinced that today is his lucky day and is absolutely certain that a 6 will come up when the die is rolled. While I think that there's a possibility that that will be the result, probably it will be some other number. The odds are in my favor so I take the bet. Is this an act of faith on my part? How about the other guy, is he demonstrating faith?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 25, 2017 20:15:15 GMT
Defining terms is pretty good way to proceed with an argument, and you've been resisting providing a clear definition of "faith." A practical example: A guy comes to me wanting to wager on the roll of a fair six-sided die. He's convinced that today is his lucky day and is absolutely certain that a 6 will come up when the die is rolled. While I think that there's a possibility that that will be the result, probably it will be some other number. The odds are in my favor so I take the bet. Is this an act of faith on my part? How about the other guy, is he demonstrating faith? If you take the wager... You both are. You both are exercising faith in the next roll. Yours is a bit more reasonable.. But: THE EXISTENCE OF BLIND FAITH DOES NOT NEGATE THE EXISTENCE OF REASON-BASED FAITH. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 25, 2017 20:22:36 GMT
Defining terms is pretty good way to proceed with an argument, and you've been resisting providing a clear definition of "faith." A practical example: A guy comes to me wanting to wager on the roll of a fair six-sided die. He's convinced that today is his lucky day and is absolutely certain that a 6 will come up when the die is rolled. While I think that there's a possibility that that will be the result, probably it will be some other number. The odds are in my favor so I take the bet. Is this an act of faith on my part? How about the other guy, is he demonstrating faith? If you take the wager... You both are. You both are exercising faith in the next roll. Yours is a bit more reasonable.. But: THE EXISTENCE OF BLIND FAITH DOES NOT NEGATE THE EXISTENCE OF REASON-BASED FAITH. Edit: You are acting in faith... after considering the odds.. Knowing that they are in your favor. It is faith that you have based on your reasoning.. not just blind wishful thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 25, 2017 20:23:45 GMT
Faith always needs a reason or basis.
Otherwise it's just belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 25, 2017 20:26:32 GMT
tpfkar Another difference lies in how emotional need vs. dispassionate analysis drives the belief. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 20:42:59 GMT
THE EXISTENCE OF BLIND FAITH DOES NOT NEGATE THE EXISTENCE OF REASON-BASED FAITH. If it's based in reason, it is the antithesis of faith. Why do people insist on changing definitions of words? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 25, 2017 20:58:34 GMT
If it's based in reason, it is the antithesis of faith. Why do people insist on changing definitions of words? This is such a silly view of things. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 25, 2017 22:08:13 GMT
If it's based in reason, it is the antithesis of faith. Why do people insist on changing definitions of words? This is such a silly view of things. Agreed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 22:13:45 GMT
If it's based in reason, it is the antithesis of faith. Why do people insist on changing definitions of words? This is such a silly view of things. Explain. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 1:38:01 GMT
The problem comes back to the same thing it always, there is no basis to claim a god is true, or even to claim that it's possible.(And to me, too) You haven't done their study.. You haven't had their experiences. You don't get to make that call for them... nor do you get to say that they don't have a reason for their belief.. or to say that they don't use reason. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 1:46:45 GMT
TO YOU!!!! (And to me, too) You haven't done their study.. You haven't had their experiences. You don't get to make that call for them... nor do you get to say that they don't have a reason for their belief.. or to say that they don't use reason. I do, and here's why.
Their beliefs impact society. They try to influence what is taught in schools, they try to pass laws based on their religion, they commit violence based on their beliefs, they encourage the dismissal of scientific discovery.
When you start impacting other people, and the future of humanity, your actions have to be justified.
Knowledge is a collective endeavor. Something isn't true to me, and not true to you. It's either true, or it's not. And if we are going to organize a society, our collective actions need to be based on what is verifiably true, and not on whatever myth you want to claim you had a vision about. That kind of justification, does not, and should not, have any relevance to society. It is an unjustified claim, which as exactly the same validity as claiming pets are made of marshmallows. And we do not make decisions based on unverified claims, especially when they have no relation to reality, like most religious claims.
You do realize that we understand the universe and life can occur naturally right? Nothing in reality requires a god, so what does he do?
|
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 26, 2017 2:15:31 GMT
The two examples are predictions about the future, which are not 100% certain unless they involve logical truths. (I'm absolutely sure that tomorrow the angles of a triangle will still total 180 degrees.) As has already been pointed out, this isn't a good analogy to belief in God. It is though, as there are logical reasons for belief in God, as scholars have pointed out over millennia. |
|
Froggy
New Member
@froggy
Posts: 32
|
Post by Froggy on Feb 26, 2017 2:23:22 GMT
The two examples are predictions about the future, which are not 100% certain unless they involve logical truths. (I'm absolutely sure that tomorrow the angles of a triangle will still total 180 degrees.) As has already been pointed out, this isn't a good analogy to belief in God. It is though, as there are logical reasons for belief in God, as scholars have pointed out over millennia. There are certainly logical arguments for the existence of God, but no ironclad proofs. (There are also no ironclad proofs for the nonexistence of God, for that matter.) |
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Feb 26, 2017 2:38:24 GMT
It is though, as there are logical reasons for belief in God, as scholars have pointed out over millennia. There are certainly logical arguments for the existence of God, but no ironclad proofs. (There are also no ironclad proofs for the nonexistence of God, for that matter.) You're right, there are no ironclad proofs either way, and never will be, not for the general population, although for any particular individual, their experience often provides proof sufficient to them. They may tell others, who depending on the degree of trust, accept what they say. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 4:47:19 GMT
I do, and here's why.
Their beliefs impact society. They try to influence what is taught in schools, they try to pass laws based on their religion, they commit violence based on their beliefs, they encourage the dismissal of scientific discovery.
When you start impacting other people, and the future of humanity, your actions have to be justified.
Knowledge is a collective endeavor. Something isn't true to me, and not true to you. It's either true, or it's not. And if we are going to organize a society, our collective actions need to be based on what is verifiably true, and not on whatever myth you want to claim you had a vision about. That kind of justification, does not, and should not, have any relevance to society. It is an unjustified claim, which as exactly the same validity as claiming pets are made of marshmallows. And we do not make decisions based on unverified claims, especially when they have no relation to reality, like most religious claims.
You do realize that we understand the universe and life can occur naturally right? Nothing in reality requires a god, so what does he do?
Jesus... You want to pass around an offering plate before you get off that soapbox.  You're not even in the same sport that we are discussing... let alone the same ballpark.  The game is baseball.. The simple discussion of whether or not a person can have faith in a thing because of reason. Nobody is talking about any of that sht that you are rambling about. Put down that deflated football of your paranoia of people with faith comin' ta getcha. Look.. Nobody is suggesting that the people who believe that the world is flat should be allowed to be in charge of editing the school books... There's a fcking middle, dude.. Relax. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 5:59:25 GMT
Jesus... You want to pass around an offering plate before you get off that soapbox. You're not even in the same sport that we are discussing... let alone the same ballpark. The game is baseball.. The simple discussion of whether or not a person can have faith in a thing because of reason. Nobody is talking about any of that sht that you are rambling about. Put down that deflated football of your paranoia of people with faith comin' ta getcha. Look.. Nobody is suggesting that the people who believe that the world is flat should be allowed to be in charge of editing the school books... There's a fcking middle, dude.. Relax. Faith isn't about reason. Faith is the excuse you use when you don't have evidence to back up a claim. If you had any good evidence, you wouldn't need faith.
There actually isn't a middle. God belief is every bit as silly as flat Earth belief, and the only shame is you don't realize it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 12:05:51 GMT
No... That's your excuse for claiming that all faith is unreasoned. Not really.... There are degrees to everything. Only the blind fail to see that. EDIT: For starters... You can easily prove that the earth isn't flat. That sentiment seems to be going around... only it's more ironic when you say it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 15:38:06 GMT
No... That's your excuse for claiming that all faith is unreasoned. Not really.... There are degrees to everything. Only the blind fail to see that. EDIT: For starters... You can easily prove that the earth isn't flat. That sentiment seems to be going around... only it's more ironic when you say it. If you have evidence, you don't need faith. Sorry.
I don't appeal to faith for anything, and yet I have an understanding for the basic history of the entire universe. And the things I don't know, I admit I don't know, rather than making up answers like "god did it".
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 26, 2017 18:25:08 GMT
Evidence isn't the end-all-be all of the universe... Some evidence only provides a possible explanation of what has occurred or what might occur. Some evidence can have multiple implications or interpretations... Some of which you can choose one to believe or put faith in. Yes.... BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE. WHAT YOU BELIEVE MIGHT CHANGE UPON THE FINDING OF NEW EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE OLD. YOU HAVE FAITH THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE.... BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT IS AT HAND.  Yes. And not everybody else who is not you does that... including people who actually believe in God.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Feb 26, 2017 19:02:13 GMT
Evidence isn't the end-all-be all of the universe... Some evidence only provides a possible explanation of what has occurred or what might occur. Some evidence can have multiple implications or interpretations... Some of which you can choose one to believe or put faith in. Yes.... BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE. WHAT YOU BELIEVE MIGHT CHANGE UPON THE FINDING OF NEW EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE OLD. YOU HAVE FAITH THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS TRUE.... BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT IS AT HAND. Yes. And not everybody else who is not you does that... including people who actually believe in God.
Actually evidence is the end all be all. I will certainly change what I believe based on new evidence, you aren't telling me anything there, it's called learning. You might want to check into that. And yes, some evidence only leads to possible explanations, correct. So what? Do you have evidence god is even possible? No, you don't even have that. That's how weak the god idea is. |
|
