|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 2, 2017 9:00:15 GMT
Faith can be used to justify any religious belief from god to Zeus to Ra to anything else. All you have to do is say, "it's a matter of faith".
It simply isn't a reliable method for determining truth, and hence saying your belief is based on faith, is not a valid basis for accepting your position as true.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 2, 2017 9:01:50 GMT
More like you mean nothing.
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 2, 2017 9:27:35 GMT
Faith can be used to justify any religious belief from god to Zeus to Ra to anything else. All you have to do is say, "it's a matter of faith".
It simply isn't a reliable method for determining truth, and hence saying your belief is based on faith, is a valid basis for accepting your position as true. I suspect that you don't actually know what faith is.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 2, 2017 11:31:20 GMT
Faith can be used to justify any religious belief from god to Zeus to Ra to anything else. All you have to do is say, "it's a matter of faith".
It simply isn't a reliable method for determining truth, and hence saying your belief is based on faith, is a valid basis for accepting your position as true. Just because some base their faith on a sentence does not invalidate the notion of faith. That's like saying that someone who whines about religion all the time defines what all atheists whine about which is retarded form of deduction.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 13:46:05 GMT
Faith can be used to justify any religious belief from god to Zeus to Ra to anything else. All you have to do is say, "it's a matter of faith".
It simply isn't a reliable method for determining truth, and hence saying your belief is based on faith, is a valid basis for accepting your position as true. First off, justification/what counts as justification is subjective no matter what you do.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 2, 2017 16:44:27 GMT
I suspect that you don't actually know what faith is. I'd be happy to hear your definition, but faith as theists use it, is a substitute for not having any verifiable evidence. Do you have a different definition you would like to use?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 2, 2017 16:45:56 GMT
Just because some base their faith on a sentence does not invalidate the notion of faith. That's like saying that someone who whines about religion all the time defines what all atheists whine about which is retarded form of deduction. I'm asking seriously, how do you validate faith in the sense that theists use it, when they are using specifically because there is nothing else to validate what they have faith in?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 16:46:43 GMT
More like you mean nothing. Is flinging insults at people you can't counter really all you have? What a weak system of belief you cling to.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 2, 2017 16:48:51 GMT
First off, justification/what counts as justification is subjective no matter what you do. Not it isn't. I can drop an object repeatedly to justify gravity. I can even measure the rate at which it falls and compare that to other objects to show it's consistent. That isn't subjective.
Justify your faith in god.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 16:50:08 GMT
First off, justification/what counts as justification is subjective no matter what you do. Not it isn't. I can drop an object repeatedly to justify gravity. I can even measure the rate at which it falls and compare that to other objects to show it's consistent. That isn't subjective.
Justify your faith in god.
"I can drop an object repeatedly to justify gravity" -- and what makes that objectively count as a justification is?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 2, 2017 16:54:11 GMT
"I can drop an object repeatedly to justify gravity" -- and what makes that objectively count as a justification is? It's a consistent, verifiable, independently testable phenomenon. It even applies to the mass of the Earth and Sun and the rate at which we revolve around it. Do you doubt gravity?
Ok now justify your faith in god.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 16:57:06 GMT
"I can drop an object repeatedly to justify gravity" -- and what makes that objectively count as a justification is? It's a consistent, verifiable, independently testable phenomenon. It even applies to the mass of the Earth and Sun and the rate at which we revolve around it. Do you doubt gravity?
Ok now justify your faith in god.
"It's a consistent, verifiable, independently testable phenomenon." And you're saying that it's not just your subjective preference that justification requires consistent, verifiable, independently testable phenomena, but it's an objective fact, right? Also, why are you assuming I'm religious?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 2, 2017 17:00:20 GMT
"It's a consistent, verifiable, independently testable phenomenon." And you're saying that it's not just your subjective preference that justification requires consistent, verifiable, independently testable phenomena, but it's an objective fact, right? Also, why are you assuming I'm religious? It's neither a preference or opinion, but the only process for demonstrating something is true.
And maybe you aren't religious. It doesn't really matter. But my only point was to highlight that a faith in god doesn't have any substantive meaning, so if you can't comment on the validity of it, then we don't have anything further to discuss in this particular thread.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 17:02:44 GMT
"It's a consistent, verifiable, independently testable phenomenon." And you're saying that it's not just your subjective preference that justification requires consistent, verifiable, independently testable phenomena, but it's an objective fact, right? Also, why are you assuming I'm religious? It's neither a preference or opinion, but the only process for demonstrating something is true.
And maybe you aren't religious. It doesn't really matter. But my only point was to highlight that a faith in god doesn't have any substantive meaning, so if you can't comment on the validity of it, then we don't have anything further to discuss in this particular thread.
"The only process for demonstrating something is true" per what? "But my only point was to highlight that a faith in god doesn't have any substantive meaning" which is utter nonsense, as is everything else you've said in this thread, but one thing at a time.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 2, 2017 17:05:02 GMT
"The only process for demonstrating something is true" per what? "But my only point was to highlight that a faith in god doesn't have any substantive meaning" which is utter nonsense, as is everything else you've said in this thread, but one thing at a time. So to cut to the chase, can you demonstrate anything about the type of faith used to believe in a god, or a god itself even, that is even half as good as dropping an object to demonstrate gravity.
If you can't, there is nothing further discussion here.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 17:06:40 GMT
"The only process for demonstrating something is true" per what? "But my only point was to highlight that a faith in god doesn't have any substantive meaning" which is utter nonsense, as is everything else you've said in this thread, but one thing at a time. So to cut to the chase, can you demonstrate anything about the type of faith used to believe in a god, or a god itself even, that is even half as good as dropping an object to demonstrate gravity.
If you can't, there is no further discussion here.
"as good" is incorrigibly subjective. I'm in the process of explaining this to you. You'll never realize it if you don't go through the process of actually thinking about your views in a critical way though. So that's the only process for demonstrating that something is true per what? What makes that the only process for demonstrating that something is true?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 2, 2017 17:11:36 GMT
"as good" is incorrigibly subjective. I'm in the process of explaining this to you. You'll never realize it if you don't go through the process of actually thinking about your views in a critical way though. So that's the only process for demonstrating that something is true per what? What makes that the only process for demonstrating that something is true? Accuracy and reliability do. And you aren't explaining anything to me I don't already understand. You can replace "as good" with "as reliable" if it helps you realize that you aren't the authority here.
Now, you have exactly one more chance,
Can you demonstrate anything about the type of faith used to believe in a god, or a god itself, that is even half as "reliable" as dropping an object to demonstrate gravity.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 17:13:19 GMT
"as good" is incorrigibly subjective. I'm in the process of explaining this to you. You'll never realize it if you don't go through the process of actually thinking about your views in a critical way though. So that's the only process for demonstrating that something is true per what? What makes that the only process for demonstrating that something is true? Accuracy and reliability do. And you aren't explaining anything to me I don't already understand. You can replace "as good" with "as reliable" if it helps you realize that you aren't the authority here.
Now, you have exactly one more chance,
Can you demonstrate anything about the type of faith used to believe in a god, or a god itself, that is even half as "reliable" as dropping an object to demonstrate gravity.
What is assessing accuracy and reliability? If it's an objective property--the assessment, where is it located?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 2, 2017 17:18:35 GMT
What is assessing accuracy and reliability? If it's an objective property--the assessment, where is it located? For instance, various people use faith to justify belief in the christian god, and all sorts of other gods and religious actions there is no evidence for. If faith can be used to reach different conclusions,
It isn't a reliable means of determining truth.
Agreed?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 18:44:38 GMT
What is assessing accuracy and reliability? If it's an objective property--the assessment, where is it located? For instance, various people use faith to justify belief in the christian god, and all sorts of other gods and religious actions there is no evidence for. If faith can be used to reach different conclusions,
It isn't a reliable means of determining truth.
Agreed?
People not only use faith to justify belief in all sorts of gods, they use empirical evidence and logic, too. Any epistemic method can be used to reach different conclusions. But is truth necessarily not relative, for one?
|
|