|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 2, 2017 16:36:56 GMT
I see. Does this mean now then you are fence-sitting and offering an ether-or? lol
Before, it appeared we were not to consider the religious version. Until I then pointed out it was part of one of your dictionary definitions. So here it is, back and part and parcel of everything else. Whereas the observation is the same that, it can quite reasonably be argued religious faith only thrives because of the absence of evidence. In fact it makes quite a meal of it, all the necessary credulity of the faithful that is required.
- To which division it can be still be observed that, yes as we have both agreed, it is perfectly possible to have regular faith in anything in anything without evidence, why would one want to have faith, or talk about it. when there is proper corroboration to be had? Those who make the biggest fuss about 'faith' (witness its high visibility within organised religion) are, naturally enough those who possess it and nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 2, 2017 17:34:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 2, 2017 17:48:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 2, 2017 21:40:33 GMT
Nah... It's fcking stupid.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 3, 2017 2:59:24 GMT
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 3, 2017 3:12:10 GMT
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.
I'm not talking about in the case of a paternity suit, though - in the absence of evidence to the contrary, even unsubstantiated evidence like the word of another man, most guys take it on faith that the father is whoever the mother tells them it is. Most dads don't demand empirical evidence before they claim paternity of a child. They take it on faith. ...or, at least, that's the word I'd use for it. What word would you use?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 6, 2017 12:17:08 GMT
It seems you are, at least from these two sentences.
Since I have already agreed that faith can be held with or without evidence you are a little behind the curve. However, speaking as a father myself, I think it stretches things a bit to see that I would see legitimacy within the family as a matter of 'faith' It is more a matter of trust.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 6, 2017 12:30:00 GMT
Just so it's clear to everybody: That is the only point that I was trying to make. ...and this entire mess started because of it.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 6, 2017 12:39:57 GMT
It was still rather disingenuous to argue that you are not concerned with the particular nature of religious faith on a religious noticeboard. Especially since an atheist can easily argue that, strictly speaking, it is not possible to hold religious faith with evidence - since there is none, and so it never arises.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 6, 2017 12:52:03 GMT
It was still rather disingenuous to argue that you are not concerned with the particular nature of religious faith on a religious noticeboard. Especially since an atheist can easily argue that, strictly speaking, it is not possible to hold religious faith with evidence - since there is none, and so it never arises. As somebody else pointed out.. The title of the board is Religion, Faith, and Spirituality.... If the only form of faith that we are allowed to discussed is religious in nature.... The name should be Religion and Spirituality. Also.. We, as adults, are allowed to set parameters for a discussion.... My OP was that I wasn't talking specifically about religious faith.... at all.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 6, 2017 12:59:32 GMT
No one is saying that no other type of faith might be discussed. Just that a reasonable person might think it less relevant. And your view of the name of the forum is just disingenuous, rather proving my point again.
Well, especially given the inclusion by you of the religious definition as part of your dictionary cut n pastes, your lack of this distinction was inconsistent to say the least. It doesn't affect the point we agree on of course, that faith can be held without or with evidence, but a consideration of the religious type is far more productive - and germane to the board.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 6, 2017 15:01:08 GMT
I included them - quoting the entire definition - specifically to demonstrate that I wasn't being disingenuous... and show that the religious context isn't actually the main emphasis of the word. Only if you are a retard.. I only said that I wasn't discussing religious faith a thousand fcking times... BECAUSE I HAD TO. Because God forbid that you.. A PERSON WHO ALREADY SUBSCRIBES TO MY POINT THAT FAITH CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENCE... could actually sht the fck up about how they think that any form of religious thought is stupid for five fcking minutes.
- "Of course I can have faith based on evidence.. BUT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AREN'T ALLOWED!!! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!! THEY ARE ALL JUST STUPID!!"
Of course, you'll just assume that that last bit of rant is a plea for religious faith.. It's not.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 6, 2017 15:35:07 GMT
Whatever; as already said, given the raison d'etre of this board , this ended up being confusing.
Since I am not then you will have to accept what I say regardless. But be sure and remember personal insults can be self-defeating.
Since I have not said that 'any form of religious thought is stupid', or that 'RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AREN'T ALLOWED!!!' etc then this is strawman. All I have implied is that, arguably, since some sorts of faith are not objectively susceptible to evidence, than they can not be evidenced-based faith by definition. Hence, in this particular instance your point is moot. Also I would suggest that, with evidence, normal 'faith' is more trust than anything else.
Not at all. But it is hard to distinguish the rant from the generalisation about some who merely questions the logic basis of religious faith.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 7, 2017 4:44:26 GMT
It seems you are, at least from these two sentences. Since I have already agreed that faith can be held with or without evidence you are a little behind the curve. However, speaking as a father myself, I think it stretches things a bit to see that I would see legitimacy within the family as a matter of 'faith' It is more a matter of trust. I used the example I did because when you actually look at the evidence a lot of guys have raised children believing them to be their own children, but they weren't really. Until the era of modern medicine and liberal attitudes toward sex, paternity was generally something taken on faith. (Cuckolding, I believe it's called). The terms "faithful" and "unfaithful" are applied more often to spouses than deities these days IMHO. More people are probably married than religious in a lot of western countries.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 7, 2017 6:20:30 GMT
And all I've said is that some sorts of faith can be evidence-based... The fact that some aren't doesn't make that point moot.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 7, 2017 14:55:42 GMT
It seems you are, at least from these two sentences. Since I have already agreed that faith can be held with or without evidence you are a little behind the curve. However, speaking as a father myself, I think it stretches things a bit to see that I would see legitimacy within the family as a matter of 'faith' It is more a matter of trust. I used the example I did because when you actually look at the evidence a lot of guys have raised children believing them to be their own children, but they weren't really. Until the era of modern medicine and liberal attitudes toward sex, paternity was generally something taken on faith. (Cuckolding, I believe it's called). The terms "faithful" and "unfaithful" are applied more often to spouses than deities these days IMHO. More people are probably married than religious in a lot of western countries. 'Faithful' and 'unfaithful', in the context of conjugal fidelity anyway, most commonly refer to behaviour, not the notion of trust in one's partner per se.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 7, 2017 14:57:21 GMT
And all I've said is that some sorts of faith can be evidence-based... The fact that some aren't doesn't make that point moot. It does if some sorts of faith - such as a belief in something about which nothing can be known - are not susceptible to objective evidence in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 7, 2017 15:37:50 GMT
tpfkar Nah, like a lot of your messes it stems from your clumsy attempts to boost one concept by equating it to a substantially different one via different usages of the same word. ze fax
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 7, 2017 15:52:58 GMT
i know from decades of observation that:
faith without jerks is dead.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 7, 2017 20:38:42 GMT
i know from decades of observation that: faith without jerks is dead.
|
|