|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 1, 2017 14:47:33 GMT
No one speaks of faith where there is evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 15:09:34 GMT
No one speaks of faith where there is evidence. Okay.. There's a rope bridge that spans a deep crevasse... It looks rotted and rickety. 5 people cross the bridge before you do... carrying heavy back-packs. You now can put faith in that bridge because of the evidence of seeing it in use. Of course.. I wouldn't put faith in it... Having seen every movie that has a rope bridge in it.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 1, 2017 15:22:28 GMT
Vegas is getting murdered in these threads. And murderers need to be prosecuted. ze fax |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 1, 2017 15:31:09 GMT
No one speaks of faith where there is evidence. Okay.. There's a rope bridge that spans a deep crevasse... It looks rotted and rickety. 5 people cross the bridge before you do... carrying heavy back-packs. You now can put faith in that bridge because of the evidence of seeing it in use. Of course.. I wouldn't put faith in it... Having seen every movie that has a rope bridge in it. There is no equivalent evidence for the deliberate supernatural, whether rotted and rickety or not, which is the point; and so I think you have made a false comparison. Also religious faith, being a secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will viewed as a theological virtue, is not the same as normal faith - just the unadorned, complete trust or confidence in someone or something per se. It may be observed too, that while yes, one can have faith with or without evidence, evidence either way is not necessary for faith to exist. In other words you might have faith in your bridge because of the evidence of successful crossings ... or you might see someone plummet and still have faith; perhaps the bridge 'works in mysterious ways'? Moreover since God and the Bible tell believers they must always have faith, then faith perforce continues as a necessary virtue in and of itself - whether justified by discouraging events or not, which the faithful are helpfully primed to expect. Indeed, part of some people's faith rationalised is that disasters are just sent to make us stronger, or that only the good will be rewarded eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 15:43:22 GMT
For the last time... I hope: THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FAITH.. BUT RATHER ANY FAITH WHATSOEVER: FAITH IN THE BROADEST DEFINITION
IT'S NOT A COMPARISON OF ANYTHING
.... IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF HAVING FAITH IN SOMETHING STRENGTHENED BY EVIDENCE.
THAT IS ALL WE ARE FCKING TALKING ABOUTTHAT IS MY POINT!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 15:49:28 GMT
For the last time... I hope: THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FAITH.. BUT RATHER ANY FAITH WHATSOEVER: FAITH IN THE BROADEST DEFINITION
IT'S NOT A COMPARISON OF ANYTHING
.... IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF HAVING FAITH IN SOMETHING STRENGTHENED BY EVIDENCE.
THAT IS ALL WE ARE FUCKING TALKING ABOUTTHAT IS MY POINT!!!
What was it you asked earlier? Oh yes, it was something like... "Who's "bent out of shape, now?"  |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 15:53:05 GMT
What was it you asked earlier? Oh yes, it was something like... "Who's "bent out of shape, now?" BIG PRINT ISN'T FOR THE WRITER TO SHOW THAT HE IS "BENT OUT OF SHAPE"..
IT'S AN AIDE FOR THE FCKING BLIND.
 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 15:54:59 GMT
what?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 15:57:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 1, 2017 16:05:03 GMT
For the last time... I hope: THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FAITH.. BUT RATHER ANY FAITH WHATSOEVER: FAITH IN THE BROADEST DEFINITION
IT'S NOT A COMPARISON OF ANYTHING
.... IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF HAVING FAITH IN SOMETHING STRENGTHENED BY EVIDENCE.
THAT IS ALL WE ARE FCKING TALKING ABOUTTHAT IS MY POINT!!!
Thank you for your temperate and modest reminder lol. I admit that, unfortunately, I missed this point of yours. Even so, attempting to define faith on a religious noticeboard by excluding religious faith might be thought a little disingenuous, especially since it is exactly around such ideas that the calls for evidence becomes most noticeable and argued over- even while I notice you actually included the religious definition of faith in your dictionary definitions. It becomes the equivalent of discussing the definition of 'theory' while not including the different case of scientific theory |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 1, 2017 16:26:56 GMT
For the last time... I hope: THIS IS NOT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FAITH.. BUT RATHER ANY FAITH WHATSOEVER: FAITH IN THE BROADEST DEFINITION
IT'S NOT A COMPARISON OF ANYTHING
.... IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF HAVING FAITH IN SOMETHING STRENGTHENED BY EVIDENCE.
THAT IS ALL WE ARE FUCKING TALKING ABOUTTHAT IS MY POINT!!!
What was it you asked earlier? Oh yes, it was something like... "Who's "bent out of shape, now?" Holy balls they've given him the ability to melt down in a larger font.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 16:31:53 GMT
I'm not "attempting" to define faith... I'm just using the actual definition... which is broader than its religious meaning.
So which is it?.... Am I disingenuous for excluding it... or am I including it? 
I used the entire definition... which shows that the religious usage of the word isn't the primary meaning. The original point was that I was arguing against was that the entire definition of "faith" - EVEN IN A NON-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT - required a lack of evidence. No faith what-so-ever - RELIGIOUS OR NOT - could be ever be based or strengthened by the use of evidence... ever.
That's the argument. That is my "interpretation of faith" that is being questioned here... The OP believes that everyone considers faith - RELIGOUS OR NOT - by definition, to be baseless... and started this thread to prove that. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 16:36:37 GMT
Holy balls they've given him the ability to melt down in a larger font. Suck my balls, Douchebag. Once again... No actual point.. Just a dick trying to suck his own dick. Btw. Robert Duvall called.. He says you're a cunt. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 16:50:52 GMT
This is every Rape-Tum-Tugger argument, ever. You know what.. You're actually right for a change.  It's Vegas - being right - and arguing with retards on the internet who convince each other that he's wrong... because retards love the internet. Just kidding, retards. And you just saying meaningless stupid sht.... proving that you're just a douchey asshat. IT IS EVERY ARGUMENT THAT I'VE HAD HERE. "HERE" also including the old board. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 1, 2017 16:53:57 GMT
I only say I think you are disingenuous for including it. At the very least it muddies the water. Not least because in the case of religious faith it is only the lack of unambiguous evidence for a number of extraordinary claims which makes faith so important for those very willing to believe, often under compulsion.
It would the primary meaning in a religious context. Such as a religious message board, when one can surely make reasonable assumptions. Religious faith typically carries additional baggage such as doctrinal rectitude.
To which the observation is the same, especially as you have dragged religion back in now: that, although one can have faith with or without evidence, as we both now agree, arguably religious faith is only critically important to believers, besides biblical insistence, because there is no unambiguous evidence available to all. It is reasonable to go further and suggest that such faith only thrives because of a lack of any alternative. As I already observed no one would talk of faith if there really was convincing evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 1, 2017 17:07:31 GMT
 Just pretend for second that we are rational human beings with brains in our heads... and we can set the parameter for a conversation regardless of its location in the ether. Now.. Pretend that we already did that. ..and move on. How have I "dragged religion back in"... What?.. By stipulating that the conversation is specifically not about religion?? Actually.. I think you may have read that wrong... The emphasis isn't "RELIGIOUS AND NOT"... It was just to show that "THEY" believe that "NO EVIDENCE" clause assigned to religious faith ASLO applies to NON-RELIGIOUS FAITH. It does not. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 1, 2017 18:14:30 GMT
No reason to "move on" from you trying to cuss-fit your wishful language contortions through.  ze fax |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 18:28:02 GMT
First of all no, it should not be assumed that religious faith is "basically" blind. It might usually start out more blind than not, but then it can progress with experiences and education. Yes, it starts out blind in the sense that you don't have any evidence. Then, as you gain experience and education, you actively suppress evidence that doesn't fit into your faith.  So then it becomes faith in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, not just faith based on very weak evidence. |
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
 
|
Post by althea on Mar 1, 2017 21:29:38 GMT
No one speaks of faith where there is evidence. How many men take it on faith that their children are in fact their children, even if they have no evidence of paternity beyond faith in the mother's word? There's plenty of evidence they may be the father....but how many men require objective proof before they claim paternity of a child? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 2, 2017 16:09:51 GMT
No one speaks of faith where there is evidence. How many men take it on faith that their children are in fact their children, even if they have no evidence of paternity beyond faith in the mother's word? There's plenty of evidence they may be the father....but how many men require objective proof before they claim paternity of a child? This still does not change my observation. Speaking for myself however, if paternity was alleged from a third party then I would certainly want evidence.
Also, in the case of a paternity suit (which would be the most critical example here) I doubt whether a court would decide things on faith either, especially if a settlement was to be judged.
|
|
So then it becomes faith in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, not just faith based on very weak evidence.