Faith

[AKR]

i'd like to make a comment on faith. religious people seem very proud of their faith. they tend to wear it on their sleeve and act very proud of the fact that they don't need evidence to believe in something. before i go any further, let's define faith.

the american heritage dictionary defines "faith" in the following ways:

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.

when i hear the word "faith" used by religious people, i tend to hear it and take it as belief in something for which there is no evidence. people talk about the "leap" of faith. some say to follow the firm road as far as it goes, and then take a leap of faith over the gap to get to your conclusion.

to a certain extent, i think we all do this on a regular basis. if you want to be incredibly picky and technical, none of us really KNOW anything for sure, and we all use faith. even standing outside and looking at the ground, i really don't KNOW that i have earth under my feet and then there really is a sky above me. for all i really know, i could be locked in a basement somewhere, plugged into someone's virtual reality system in the year 3025. of course, this is getting carried away with the use of the word, but i know some like to say that we have faith in science. if we want to be incredibly anal and technical, i suppose one could say that. the difference in that kind of faith is that at some point, it becomes highly unreasonable to believe anything other than what has been presented to you. at that point, the word pretty much loses what it is intended to mean, and regardless if it is technically still faith in someway, it is definately not on the same level with someone who has absolutely no solid evidence to believe something.

regardless, the point at which i have a serious problem with someone's "faith" is when they start using it as a free pass. there are some people out there (and in here) that use their "faith" to ignore evidence to the contrary. when you simply start to ignore the evidence around you and continue to believe something that there is not only a lack of evidence for, but evidence to the contrary, you are no longer using faith. a more fitting term would be "denial." so the next time you believe something when the evidence points another direction, and yet, you continue to believe, stop calling it faith, as if that excuses your ignorance. it's not faith. you're in denial, and you're now living in a fantasy world, because you're not simply believing in something with a lack of evidence, but you're denying reality.


btw, i didn't mean to make somewhat of a copy cat thread. i just now started reading through 1veedo's thread after i posted this.

[Pleb]

Good post, and i agree.

Like you say, there's a difference in a person saying they have faith in one thing than other, when theres no evidence for either, but when there's evidence for one thing, and none for the other, (only word-of-mouth, at best) then it's more like denial. For me, the same applies with the likes of the conspiracy theorists who want to believe a missile hit the Pentagon, when the actual physical evidence of a plane and eye-witness accounts say otherwise, it's just out-right denial of fact, because they want to believe in some elaborate story, made up by people who don't know any better.

[Gruenburger]

I never understood how people can just spontaneously believe things without evidence. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

[Gruenburger]

Originally Posted by Pleb

Good post, and i agree.

Like you say, there's a difference in a person saying they have faith in one thing than other, when theres no evidence for either, but when there's evidence for one thing, and none for the other, (only word-of-mouth, at best) then it's more like denial. For me, the same applies with the likes of the conspiracy theorists who want to believe a missile hit the Pentagon, when the actual physical evidence of a plane and eye-witness accounts say otherwise, it's just out-right denial of fact, because they want to believe in some elaborate story, made up by people who don't know any better.

perfect analogy...

reps.

[Calhexas]

Originally Posted by AKR

i'd like to make a comment on faith. religious people seem very proud of their faith. they tend to wear it on their sleeve and act very proud of the fact that they don't need evidence to believe in something. before i go any further, let's define faith.

the american heritage dictionary defines "faith" in the following ways:

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.

when i hear the word "faith" used by religious people, i tend to hear it and take it as belief in something for which there is no evidence. people talk about the "leap" of faith. some say to follow the firm road as far as it goes, and then take a leap of faith over the gap to get to your conclusion.

to a certain extent, i think we all do this on a regular basis. if you want to be incredibly picky and technical, none of us really KNOW anything for sure, and we all use faith. even standing outside and looking at the ground, i really don't KNOW that i have earth under my feet and then there really is a sky above me. for all i really know, i could be locked in a basement somewhere, plugged into someone's virtual reality system in the year 3025. of course, this is getting carried away with the use of the word, but i know some like to say that we have faith in science. if we want to be incredibly anal and technical, i suppose one could say that. the difference in that kind of faith is that at some point, it becomes highly unreasonable to believe anything other than what has been presented to you. at that point, the word pretty much loses what it is intended to mean, and regardless if it is technically still faith in someway, it is definately not on the same level with someone who has absolutely no solid evidence to believe something.

regardless, the point at which i have a serious problem with someone's "faith" is when they start using it as a free pass. there are some people out there (and in here) that use their "faith" to ignore evidence to the contrary. when you simply start to ignore the evidence around you and continue to believe something that there is not only a lack of evidence for, but evidence to the contrary, you are no longer using faith. a more fitting term would be "denial." so the next time you believe something when the evidence points another direction, and yet, you continue to believe, stop calling it faith, as if that excuses your ignorance. it's not faith. you're in denial, and you're now living in a fantasy world, because you're not simply believing in something with a lack of evidence, but you're denying reality.

What is this in reference too? What part idea or belief is this aimed at? What is it that people put faith in that you're objecting that there is contrary proof to?

[AKR]

Originally Posted by Calhexas

What is this in reference too? What part idea or belief is this aimed at? What is it that people put faith in that you're objecting that there is contrary proof to?

this isn't about starting a debate on certain issues. whatever i say is believed despite evidence to the contrary will just continue to be believed. that's the beauty of denial.

[Calhexas]

Originally Posted by AKR

this isn't about starting a debate on certain issues. whatever i say is believed despite evidence to the contrary will just continue to be believed. that's the beauty of denial.

How do you know it will be denied if you never specify what is being proven false? You're not even giving anybody a chance...and I still have no idea what issues you're directing this conversation at.

[nrellas]

Originally Posted by Gruenburger

I never understood how people can just spontaneously believe things without evidence. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Well it also comes down to something like this. Do you believe the sun will come up tomorrow? Most people will say yes, in fact I challenge you to find anyone (other than me) that would say yes. They will say yes because of faith, but more so EXPERIENCE. The sun has come up every day of our lives, as such we have reason, experience, to believe that it will infact come up tomorrow. That faith is a completely different faith than the faith taken to be religious.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by Calhexas

How do you know it will be denied if you never specify what is being proven false? You're not even giving anybody a chance..

people are given a chance every day. this isn't your first day, so what's your excuse for not knowing what people are in denial of? i get the feeling you only want to know what this is in reference to so you can argue that i'm wrong, and i have no desire to waste my time with you in this thread. so i'm done with you on this.

[Calhexas]

Originally Posted by AKR

people are given a chance every day. this isn't your first day, so what's your excuse for not knowing what people are in denial of? i get the feeling you only want to know what this is in reference to so you can argue that i'm wrong, and i have no desire to waste my time with you in this thread. so i'm done with you on this.

Why are you always so scared to discuss anything with me? I hold no malice towards you. You really need to chill out. If you wish to stay silent about your post and keep it basic and general, then so be it. But as it is now, it sounds as if you're claiming to have evidence in the contrary to religion in general. If that's not the case, then okay...but I don't know what you're referring to if you're just going to make plain, generalized statements like you did in the OP.

[SurfOnSilver]

If one takes the first definition of faith you give: '1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.', then it is absolutely true that there is 'faith' in science, however it draws no parallels to the faith whithin religious context, the difference being evidence.

By that definition of faith, then yes I have faith in the theory of evolution, in other words i have a confident belief in the truth and value of the theory, because of the magnitude of evidence presented in its favour. Indeed, I believe anyone who understands all of the evidence for evolution and still denies it standing within the scientific community is either in denial or incredibly stupid.

So, whats the problem with having 'faith' in God? well, nothing, neccesarilly, as long as there is evidence to support your belief, if you define faith as I have done above. However, there is none, and so the belief is an irrational one, and the faith is based upon irrational belief which means it differs GREATLY from word 'faith' when one is describing faith in a scientific theory with many different pieces of evidence to back it up.

Faith without evidence is illogical. If you believe in God, you believe he gave you a brain, so start using it and put your 'faith' in science! =p

[Mr_Mya]

Just going to make some comments on OP. I'm more interested in a discussion of your topic and forgive my ignorance of the 1000's of previous posts in this forum as I'm fairly new.

Originally Posted by AKR

when i hear the word "faith" used by religious people, i tend to hear it and take it as belief in something for which there is no evidence. people talk about the "leap" of faith. some say to follow the firm road as far as it goes, and then take a leap of faith over the gap to get to your conclusion.

It's good you defined faith prior to this statement, because faith isn't defined solely by the "leap". Individuals will have varying degrees of interest, backgrounds, sincerity and experiences in their religion. All these and more contribute to faith. As a Christian, I also believe it is not just one sided, God, in his generosity, enables us to believe (see John 6:65). Paul describes in Romans, that faith comes from hearing the message and the message is "heard" through the Word of Christ (see Romans 10:17). I think this "hearing" (or lack of it) points towards spiritual blindness, which you see described in Matthew 13 (verses 9-16 are good).

Thus, I would assert the "leap" isn't the proper description of faith for a Christian, but rather the first description "1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." The belief is in the truth presented in Jesus Christ, presented in the Bible based on the faith that God, in his grace, has granted. If you are coming from the view that God and Jesus are a joke or at best, a myth, then clearly, it would take a "leap" that is both baffling and mysterious hearkening back to my second sentence relating that faith is based on an individual level.

Originally Posted by AKR

when you simply start to ignore the evidence around you and continue to believe something that there is not only a lack of evidence for, but evidence to the contrary, you are no longer using faith.

This matches, in more words, your 2nd definition of faith. I think a more accurate statement might be, you don't like the 2nd definition of faith.

Originally Posted by AKR

so the next time you believe something when the evidence points another direction, and yet, you continue to believe, stop calling it faith, as if that excuses your ignorance. it's not faith. you're in denial, and you're now living in a fantasy world, because you're not simply believing in something with a lack of evidence, but you're denying reality.

Evidence is a great thing. But isn't where it points subject to the observer and the observer's condition? For example, if an observer was raised in a society that did not value God, but valued science, material possessions and the institutions of mankind as the epitome of existence, then subject to the observer's condition, the observer would make judgments on the evidence based on their scientific and material experiences or in relation to its impact on humankind.

I would imagine that presented with supernatural evidence, that someone grounded solely on science would be similar to the ignorant, uneducated savage seeing a car. Both will explain their situations as best they can, neither likely being accurate.

Your thoughts?

[AKR]

Originally Posted by SurfOnSilver

If one takes the first definition of faith you give: '1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.', then it is absolutely true that there is 'faith' in science, however it draws no parallels to the faith whithin religious context, the difference being evidence.

By that definition of faith, then yes I have faith in the theory of evolution, in other words i have a confident belief in the truth and value of the theory, because of the magnitude of evidence presented in its favour. Indeed, I believe anyone who understands all of the evidence for evolution and still denies it standing within the scientific community is either in denial or incredibly stupid.

So, whats the problem with having 'faith' in God? well, nothing, neccesarilly, as long as there is evidence to support your belief, if you define faith as I have done above. However, there is none, and so the belief is an irrational one, and the faith is based upon irrational belief which means it differs GREATLY from word 'faith' when one is describing faith in a scientific theory with many different pieces of evidence to back it up.

Faith without evidence is illogical. If you believe in God, you believe he gave you a brain, so start using it and put your 'faith' in science! =p

great expansion on the difference between faith in science and faith in god. reps.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by Mr_Mya

It's good you defined faith prior to this statement, because faith isn't defined solely by the "leap". Individuals will have varying degrees of interest, backgrounds, sincerity and experiences in their religion. All these and more contribute to faith. As a Christian, I also believe it is not just one sided, God, in his generosity, enables us to believe (see John 6:65). Paul describes in Romans, that faith comes from hearing the message and the message is "heard" through the Word of Christ (see Romans 10:17). I think this "hearing" (or lack of it) points towards spiritual blindness, which you see described in Matthew 13 (verses 9-16 are good).

Thus, I would assert the "leap" isn't the proper description of faith for a Christian, but rather the first description "1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." The belief is in the truth presented in Jesus Christ, presented in the Bible based on the faith that God, in his grace, has granted. If you are coming from the view that God and Jesus are a joke or at best, a myth, then clearly, it would take a "leap" that is both baffling and mysterious hearkening back to my second sentence relating that faith is based on an individual level.

i don't think you want to use the phrase "enables us to believe," as the use of that verse can also be turned around on you to show that he disables some of us. as for romans, words on paper do not equeal evidence, or i could use stories of the tooth fairy as reason to believe in such things. verse 15 in mathew could actually be used to describe christians who ignore simple facts.

i'd say every christian takes a leap. there is absolutely no evidence that any miracles in the bible took place; there is no evidence that god ever spoke to any of the people in the bible; there is no evidence that jesus performed a single miracle and that he is the son of god; there is simply no evidence that could be used to justify belief in the basic stance of the bible.

This matches, in more words, your 2nd definition of faith. I think a more accurate statement might be, you don't like the 2nd definition of faith.

Evidence is a great thing. But isn't where it points subject to the observer and the observer's condition?

sure, if you're high, crazy, or simply in denial, you'll think that the evidence for evolution actually proves your god exists, or that evidence that manuscripts for the bible have more mistakes than there are words in the new testament is actually proof of it's inerrancy.

but if you're not insane, on some sort of drug, or in denial. it'll lead you to draw the only conclusion that can possibly drawn from a sane, honest person.

For example, if an observer was raised in a society that did not value God, but valued science, material possessions and the institutions of mankind as the epitome of existence, then subject to the observer's condition, the observer would make judgments on the evidence based on their scientific and material experiences or in relation to its impact on humankind.

I would imagine that presented with supernatural evidence, that someone grounded solely on science would be similar to the ignorant, uneducated savage seeing a car. Both will explain their situations as best they can, neither likely being accurate.

Your thoughts?

i think what you're trying to say is that people who rely on actual research, logic, and evidence are blind to supernatural occurances. correct? science is not about seeing what you want to see; it's not about feeling good about your findings; it's about truth. if you for one second think that all of the evidence for things such as evolution, the big bang, or discoveries in anthropology all lead to god, then you are exactly who this thread was written about. again, i'm not sure if this is what you're saying, but it's what i'm getting out of it.

[Mr_Mya]

Originally Posted by AKR

i don't think you want to use the phrase "enables us to believe," as the use of that verse can also be turned around on you to show that he disables some of us. as for romans, words on paper do not equeal evidence, or i could use stories of the tooth fairy as reason to believe in such things. verse 15 in mathew could actually be used to describe christians who ignore simple facts.

I think the scriptures are clear, God enables us to have faith. To reverse the logic is jumping to a conclusion that God caused the mess to begin with. If we have disabled ourselves, and God chooses to enable some and not others, what is wrong with that? If you plead fairness, you doom us to the swift judgement of God's holiness (attribute of God), hence the concepts of mercy and grace, a couple of the many attributes of God based on the Bible. Interpretation of scripture is important, as well as, context and to whom the message was intended. Without these, you cannot rationally read the Bible.

Words on paper are important, why are discussing the validity of words of paper? History, poetry, philosophy, you toss all these in the trash because they are words on paper? Don't be silly. As for the merits of the Bible, we can discuss that. If you wish to explore faith, then you have to come to an understanding that my faith is based on to some degree, words on paper.

Originally Posted by AKR

i'd say every christian takes a leap. there is absolutely no evidence that any miracles in the bible took place; there is no evidence that god ever spoke to any of the people in the bible; there is no evidence that jesus performed a single miracle and that he is the son of god; there is simply no evidence that could be used to justify belief in the basic stance of the bible.

sure, if you're high, crazy, or simply in denial, you'll think that the evidence for evolution actually proves your god exists, or that evidence that manuscripts for the bible have more mistakes than there are words in the new testament is actually proof of it's inerrancy.

but if you're not insane, on some sort of drug, or in denial. it'll lead you to draw the only conclusion that can possibly drawn from a sane, honest person.

Your opinions are so noted. You have stated no evidence of any kind as to why you think miracles are baloney or why the Bible is false. Please, set the record straight for me. You convict all Christians of foolish ignorance, yet, you do not give any evidence. I give you my opinions, reference scripture to support those opinions and you give some opinions based on what? Was it a website you've bought into, some scientific paper that has you convinced, a study on the veracity of ancient biblical manuscripts?

Here's an example to help you: Christianity is based on Mithraism. Mithraism contains all the elements of Christianity and pre-dates it, thus Christianity is just a twisted form of a pagan religion and Judaism.

My response would then be: Your initial statement is incorrect. Mithraism was a secret religion and its original tenets unknown. As Christianity flourished in the Roman empire, Mithraism which is believed to have been prevalent in the Roman military, decided to compete and adopted many of the Christian beliefs into as its own to compete. Thus, Mithraism at it's peak around 300-400 AD, was a cheap copy of Christianity, not the other way around.

1. Statement, 2. Supporting evidence, 3. Conclusion. Yes, I am a product of the public school system, no I didn't learn that there. I don't mean to be condescending, but we cannot have a reasoned discussion without reasoning.

Originally Posted by AKR

i think what you're trying to say is that people who rely on actual research, logic, and evidence are blind to supernatural occurances. correct? science is not about seeing what you want to see; it's not about feeling good about your findings; it's about truth. if you for one second think that all of the evidence for things such as evolution, the big bang, or discoveries in anthropology all lead to god, then you are exactly who this thread was written about. again, i'm not sure if this is what you're saying, but it's what i'm getting out of it.

Scientific research and logic are great. The scientific method is a great tool for studying the universe. But it has limits. Can science quantify love? It can measure heart rate, it can measure pulse, it can precisely predict physical responses, but what is love? What is beauty? Science can measure brainwaves, oxygen levels, predict patterns, but can it quantify beauty or art? Thus, I believe science is merely a tool, useful to observe and quantify phenomena in a precise manner, but it simply cannot contain the human experience. It can also be misused like anything else.

[AKR]

Originally Posted by Mr_Mya

You have stated no evidence of any kind as to why you think miracles are baloney or why the Bible is false. Please, set the record straight for me.

this portion is part of my reason for what i have to say below. science does not work this way. i have said there is no evidence for things in the bible. how can i prove something doesn't exist? this is like proving unicorns don't exist. can you do it? nope, and fortunately, it's not your job. but it IS your job to provide evidence that anything in the bible is true. anyway...

no offense, but this is basically turning out to be the same conversation calhexas was wanting to have with me. you write quite a bit, but i find that you're saying quite little, and i don't feel it worth my time to read all of it in order to argue with someone who is exactly what this thread was talking about.

[Vaper]

Faith is the continuation of reason.
- William Adams

Were it not for an unquestioning faith, human progress would be an intolerable burden.
- James H. Aughey

The person who has a firm trust in the Supreme Being is powerful in his power, wise by his wisdom, happy by his happiness.
- Joseph Addison

Without faith a man can do nothing.
- Henri-Frederic Amiel

Faith is to believe what we do not see; and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe.
- Saint Aurelius

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
- Bible, Hebrews (ch. XI, v. 1)

Faith is the pencil of the soul
- Thomas Burbridge

When the soul grants what reason makes her see,
That is true faith, what's more's credulity.
- Sir Francis Fane

In affairs of this world men are saved, not by faith, but by the want of it.
- Henry Fielding

Faith is building on what you know is here so you can reach what you know is there.
- Cullen Hightower

No cloud can overshadow a true Christian but his faith will discern a rainbow in it.
- Thomas Hartwell Horne

Faith means belief in something concerning which doubt is theoretically possible.
- William James

Faith is obedience, not compliance.
- George MacDonald

Let none henceforth seek needless cause to approve the faith they own; when earnestly they seek such proof, conclude they then begin to fail.
- John Milton

Faith is the inspiration of nobleness, it is the strength of integrity; it is the life of love, and is everlasting growth for it; it is courage of soul, and bridges over for our crossing the gulf between worldliness and heavenly-mindedness; and it is the sense of the unseen, without which we could not feel God nor hope for heaven.
- William Mountford

Faith is among men what gravity is among planets and suns.
- Dr. Charles Henry Parkhurst

Faith is mind at its best, its bravest, and its fiercest. Faith is thought become poetry, and absorbing into itself the soul's great, passions. Faith is intellect carried up to its transfigurement.
- Dr. Charles Henry Parkhurst

Faith is the very heroism and enterprise of intellect. Faith is not a passivity, but a faculty. Faith is power, the material of effect. Faith is a kind of winged intellect. The great work men of history have been men who believed like giants.
- Dr. Charles Henry Parkhurst

f thy faith have no doubts, thou has just cause to doubt thy faith; and if thy doubts have no hope, thou hast just reason to fear despair; when therefore thy doubts shall exercise thy faith, keep thy hopes firm to qualify thy doubts; so shall thy faith be secured from doubts; so shall thy doubts be preserved from despair.
- Francis Quarles

Faith creates the virtues in which it believes.
- Marquise de Sevigne, Marie de Rabutin-Chantal

Systems exercise the mind; but faith enlightens and guides it.
- Voltaire (Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire)

If you can't have faith in what is held up to you for faith, you must find things in yourself, for a life without faith in something is too narrow a place to live.
- George Edward Woodberry

[Mr_Mya]

Originally Posted by AKR

this portion is part of my reason for what i have to say below. science does not work this way. i have said there is no evidence for things in the bible. how can i prove something doesn't exist? this is like proving unicorns don't exist. can you do it? nope, and fortunately, it's not your job. but it IS your job to provide evidence that anything in the bible is true. anyway...

no offense, but this is basically turning out to be the same conversation calhexas was wanting to have with me. you write quite a bit, but i find that you're saying quite little, and i don't feel it worth my time to read all of it in order to argue with someone who is exactly what this thread was talking about.

I need some closure, so lets summarize. You don't like people who disagree with you despite overwhelming, unstated evidence. You don't want to talk to people with whom you disagree. You don't accept or refute any evidence presented with anything other than opinions, despite asserting that it's my job to present evidence.

Conclusion: I can only assume you aren't here to think about your positions since you don't want to discuss them, but find some sort of peer support group regarding your beliefs, or lack thereof.

If you want to discuss, I'm around. Send a PM, whatever. Good luck in your search.