Faith

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Faith

1) What is faith?

2) Do you have faith?


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
1) In my opinion, faith is

1) In my opinion, faith is an emotional desire for something to be true. I prefer hope, which is realistic and stimulating into action on behalf of the object of hope.
2) No, I don't have faith, I have things like experience, knowledge, hope, presupposition, and so on, that eliminates the need of faith. As one wise man once wrote, the greatest freedom is a perfect lawfulness, without shadows of uncertainity. This is why I seek real, practical answers, where others prefer faith. And I have to say, this approach really pays off.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
1] Belief despite lack of

1] Belief despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary

 

2] Everybody takes something on faith

 

 

 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:1) What is

Paisley wrote:

1) What is faith?

2) Do you have faith?

 

WTF? wheres the video?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Depends on what you are

Depends on what you are defining faith as: 1) the trust or belief in the truthness or trust of a person, idea or thing that comes from experience, eg. Faith in a doctors ability to help the sick, faith in one owns capabilities. 2) religous faith that requires one to believe in a supreme deity or religious concept without any evidence to back up the claims of the religious claims.

I have the first definition, I always lacked the second definition.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:1) What is

Paisley wrote:

1) What is faith?

2) Do you have faith?

There are at least two usages of the word.

One is just a stronger form of 'trust', especially in a friend or loved one.

We pretty much all experience some form of this. It is based on at least some reasons, such as one's past experience with the person, but the word is normally used when there is not really enough justification rationally for such trust, but there is a strong emotional commitment.

Then there is the usage in religion, which seems to be making a virtue of holding to a belief without evidence, or even despite conflicting evidence. It is derived from the normal usage, as a way of demonstrating one's commitment to an imagined deity. This one is not a virtue to someone outside the fantasy world of Theism.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:1) In my

Luminon wrote:

1) In my opinion, faith is an emotional desire for something to be true. I prefer hope, which is realistic and stimulating into action on behalf of the object of hope.
2) No, I don't have faith, I have things like experience, knowledge, hope, presupposition, and so on, that eliminates the need of faith. As one wise man once wrote, the greatest freedom is a perfect lawfulness, without shadows of uncertainity. This is why I seek real, practical answers, where others prefer faith. And I have to say, this approach really pays off.


I really see no tangible difference between your definition of faith and Merriam-Webster's definition of hope.

Quote:

hope : desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment

(source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary: hope)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hope

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:1]

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

1] Belief despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary

 

2] Everybody takes something on faith 

What have you taken on faith, despite the fact that there was evidence to the contrary?

 

 

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Depends on

latincanuck wrote:

Depends on what you are defining faith as: 1) the trust or belief in the truthness or trust of a person, idea or thing that comes from experience, eg. Faith in a doctors ability to help the sick, faith in one owns capabilities. 2) religous faith that requires one to believe in a supreme deity or religious concept without any evidence to back up the claims of the religious claims.

I have the first definition, I always lacked the second definition.

Belief in God is based on personal experiences.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:There are

BobSpence1 wrote:

There are at least two usages of the word.

One is just a stronger form of 'trust', especially in a friend or loved one.

We pretty much all experience some form of this. It is based on at least some reasons, such as one's past experience with the person, but the word is normally used when there is not really enough justification rationally for such trust, but there is a strong emotional commitment.

But determining what qualifies as  "really enough justfication" is subjective.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Then there is the usage in religion, which seems to be making a virtue of holding to a belief without evidence, or even despite conflicting evidence. It is derived from the normal usage, as a way of demonstrating one's commitment to an imagined deity. This one is not a virtue to someone outside the fantasy world of Theism.

You're using the term "religion" as if it were monolithic, when it clearly is not. Also, I have already brought it to your attention that you adhere to the metaphysical belief in materialism, DESPITE evidence to the contrary. I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Faith is your ability to

Faith is your ability to trust and believe, unconditionally.

 

You should save your faith for whomever you decide to love. It is useless in all other contexts.

 

 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Faith is your

Marquis wrote:

Faith is your ability to trust and believe, unconditionally. 

You should save your faith for whomever you decide to love. It is useless in all other contexts.

What if your belief changes your perception of life and makes you feel better?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Depends on what you are defining faith as: 1) the trust or belief in the truthness or trust of a person, idea or thing that comes from experience, eg. Faith in a doctors ability to help the sick, faith in one owns capabilities. 2) religous faith that requires one to believe in a supreme deity or religious concept without any evidence to back up the claims of the religious claims.

I have the first definition, I always lacked the second definition.

Belief in God is based on personal experiences.

That cannot be verified by any other forms, a being that does not have any evidence outside of personal experience is no more real that a hallucination or delusion.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Paisley

latincanuck wrote:

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Depends on what you are defining faith as: 1) the trust or belief in the truthness or trust of a person, idea or thing that comes from experience, eg. Faith in a doctors ability to help the sick, faith in one owns capabilities. 2) religous faith that requires one to believe in a supreme deity or religious concept without any evidence to back up the claims of the religious claims.

I have the first definition, I always lacked the second definition.

Belief in God is based on personal experiences.

That cannot be verified by any other forms, a being that does not have any evidence outside of personal experience is no more real that a hallucination or delusion.

That's irrelevant. A belief that is based on personal experience qualifies as your first definition of faith - a definition to which you have already gone on record and stated you have.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:That

latincanuck wrote:

That cannot be verified by any other forms, a being that does not have any evidence outside of personal experience is no more real that a hallucination or delusion.

So you're saying that if I'm walking alone, and then suddenly a guy comes out of the bushes and hits me but leaves no bruises, then this experience is no more real than a hallucination?  It can't be verified.  This guy has left no trace.  All I have is my personal experience.  But according to you, it is equivalent to a delusion.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Oh my. I didn't expect to

Oh my. I didn't expect to see you again. Take a vacation?

Faith to me is confidence in something you cannot actually prove, or something that you haven't proven. An example: I have faith that my best friends won't betray me under almost any circumstances. But I can't prove it is true. I think the word faith is effectively the same as belief, though in common usage tends to make more of an implication of religion than belief does.

Paisley wrote:
What if your belief changes your perception of life and makes you feel better?

What if your lack of faith in any deity provides that change in perception and better feeling?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Depends on what you are defining faith as: 1) the trust or belief in the truthness or trust of a person, idea or thing that comes from experience, eg. Faith in a doctors ability to help the sick, faith in one owns capabilities. 2) religous faith that requires one to believe in a supreme deity or religious concept without any evidence to back up the claims of the religious claims.

I have the first definition, I always lacked the second definition.

Belief in God is based on personal experiences.

That cannot be verified by any other forms, a being that does not have any evidence outside of personal experience is no more real that a hallucination or delusion.

That's irrelevant. A belief that is based on personal experience qualifies as your first definition of faith - a definition to which you have already gone on record and stated you have.

So if I have a belief in God that says he is a rotten SOB and it is based on rotten personal experiences, is my belief true?

Or are you about to say that faith in God can only be good?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Oh my. I didn't

Vastet wrote:
Oh my. I didn't expect to see you again.

O ye of little faith.

Vastet wrote:
Faith to me is confidence in something you cannot actually prove, or something that you haven't proven. An example: I have faith that my best friends won't betray me under almost any circumstances. But I can't prove it is true.

Okay. So, do you have faith?

Vastet wrote:
Paisley wrote:
What if your belief changes your perception of life and makes you feel better?
What if your lack of faith in any deity provides that change in perception and better feeling?

I fail to see how you can feel optimistic when your worldview is clearly devoid of all faith and hope.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:So if I have

jcgadfly wrote:

So if I have a belief in God that says he is a rotten SOB and it is based on rotten personal experiences, is my belief true?

Or are you about to say that faith in God can only be good?

No, I am simply saying that belief in God or a divine reality is primarily based on personal experiences. That being said, you cannot have faith (i.e. trust) in a God whom you truly believe to be evil.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So if I have a belief in God that says he is a rotten SOB and it is based on rotten personal experiences, is my belief true?

Or are you about to say that faith in God can only be good?

No, I am simply saying that belief in God or a divine reality is primarily based on personal experiences. That being said, you cannot have faith (i.e. trust) in a God whom you truly believe to be evil.

Then faith is not based on personal experience. Thank you.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

[No, I am simply saying that belief in God or a divine reality is primarily based on personal experiences. That being said, you cannot have faith (i.e. trust) in a God whom you truly believe to be evil.

Then faith is not based on personal experience. Thank you.

Believing in the existence of God is not the same thing as having faith (i.e. trust) in God.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

That cannot be verified by any other forms, a being that does not have any evidence outside of personal experience is no more real that a hallucination or delusion.

So you're saying that if I'm walking alone, and then suddenly a guy comes out of the bushes and hits me but leaves no bruises, then this experience is no more real than a hallucination?  It can't be verified.  This guy has left no trace.  All I have is my personal experience.  But according to you, it is equivalent to a delusion.

Nope someone else is involved, there could be evidence left behind of some sort that something transpired, the person could be identified by you and there can be physical evidence left behind there can be other ways to verify your story as well, with that said if there is ZERO evidence at all, I cannot say that it actually happened either, and if you cannot identify the person then its a tale, then of course there your history of being either honest or a liar, and that can come into play. However it is far more plausible what you brought forward than god existing. However having faith in something that has no evidence to back it up, e.g. god or religious concepts of any deity, is no different really than someone taking drugs and hallucinating that goblins are after them, sure they see it, but no one else does and there is no other way to verify it, there is ZERO evidence that they are real.

 


SapphireMind
SapphireMind's picture
Posts: 73
Joined: 2009-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I used to have faith in

I used to have faith in god. 

Then I thought about it (clearly my first mistake Eye-wink )

Now I have faith and hope in a lot of things that are more tangible.  I hope that someone will recover from an illness.  I hope that my family will continue into the next decade.  I hope that society will become less violent.  I have faith that many people would like it if that were so. 

"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne

Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Depends on what you are defining faith as: 1) the trust or belief in the truthness or trust of a person, idea or thing that comes from experience, eg. Faith in a doctors ability to help the sick, faith in one owns capabilities. 2) religous faith that requires one to believe in a supreme deity or religious concept without any evidence to back up the claims of the religious claims.

I have the first definition, I always lacked the second definition.

Belief in God is based on personal experiences.

That cannot be verified by any other forms, a being that does not have any evidence outside of personal experience is no more real that a hallucination or delusion.

That's irrelevant. A belief that is based on personal experience qualifies as your first definition of faith - a definition to which you have already gone on record and stated you have.

Of course it relevant, its completely relevant to the definition of faith, personal experience without any back up means squat, faith in a doctors abilities because of experience and knowledge about doctors and the evidence that doctors do cure the sick many times, can lead one to have faith in the abilities of a doctor or doctors. Same goes faith in one own capabilities, that's has evidence to back up. Other than that, really means squat if you can't back it up, it means you have the second faith, no evidence what so ever.


Fortunate_Son
TheistTroll
Posts: 262
Joined: 2009-12-24
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Nope

latincanuck wrote:

Nope someone else is involved, there could be evidence left behind of some sort that something transpired, the person could be identified by you and there can be physical evidence left behind there can be other ways to verify your story as well,

This is my hypothetical.  You are not allowed to make interpolations.  I'm saying that there is no evidence left behind.

Quote:
with that said if there is ZERO evidence at all, I cannot say that it actually happened either, and if you cannot identify the person then its a tale

No, it's not a tale.  It REALLY happened, but it was just my personal experience.  According to you, it's just a delusion.  Thus, what you are basically saying is that real events can happen and if there is no evidence, then they were delusions, even though they really happened.

Quote:
However it is far more plausible what you brought forward than god existing. However having faith in something that has no evidence to back it up, e.g. god or religious concepts of any deity, is no different really than someone taking drugs and hallucinating that goblins are after them, sure they see it, but no one else does and there is no other way to verify it, there is ZERO evidence that they are real.

My point is, just because someone believes something on a personal experience doesn't mean that s/he is deluded.  Please concede that someone can reasonably believe something on a personal experience.  Otherwise, you are just talking nonsense.

By the way, cosmological necessity, transcendency of logic and morals, biblical revelation, and ontological necessity ARE sufficient reasons to believe in God.  So you are just wrong when you say there is no evidence.  Just because you do not accept something doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_Son

Fortunate_Son wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Nope someone else is involved, there could be evidence left behind of some sort that something transpired, the person could be identified by you and there can be physical evidence left behind there can be other ways to verify your story as well,

This is my hypothetical.  You are not allowed to make interpolations.  I'm saying that there is no evidence left behind.

Quote:
with that said if there is ZERO evidence at all, I cannot say that it actually happened either, and if you cannot identify the person then its a tale

No, it's not a tale.  It REALLY happened, but it was just my personal experience.  According to you, it's just a delusion.  Thus, what you are basically saying is that real events can happen and if there is no evidence, then they were delusions, even though they really happened.

Quote:
However it is far more plausible what you brought forward than god existing. However having faith in something that has no evidence to back it up, e.g. god or religious concepts of any deity, is no different really than someone taking drugs and hallucinating that goblins are after them, sure they see it, but no one else does and there is no other way to verify it, there is ZERO evidence that they are real.

My point is, just because someone believes something on a personal experience doesn't mean that s/he is deluded.  Please concede that someone can reasonably believe something on a personal experience.  Otherwise, you are just talking nonsense.

By the way, cosmological necessity, transcendency of logic and morals, biblical revelation, and ontological necessity ARE sufficient reasons to believe in God.  So you are just wrong when you say there is no evidence.  Just because you do not accept something doesn't mean that it isn't evidence.

ummm no those are not reasons to believe in a god but those are reasons people but forth why they believe in a god. But in reality those are not really any good reason to believe a god exists, those are not exactly evidence that god exists. those are arugments for it, but not evidence, but there is much evidence to the contrary, which is where faith now comes in to play, they still believe even though the evidence says otherwise.

However believing that a being exists or that a being can do things without any evidence to back it up is faith, which is completely different then what you are talking about, which is not faith, your scenario you gave does not require me to believe you on faith, it requires me to believe you based on how probable you story is. Completely different, however the evidence of the evolution of man, now contradicts the biblical story of creation, as well the evidence of how the universe came to be also contradicts the biblical story. Evidence or the lack of evidence for a god also contradict the claims that god exists, therefore you need to take it on faith, eg, believe even though it contradicts reality, the evidence and there is no evidence that it is true.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Faith in what?

Paisley wrote:

1) What is faith?

2) Do you have faith?

 

There is faith my car will start because it always has and I look after it. And there is the religious faith in magic stuff you are clearly alluding to. They are not the same thing and it is obviously possible to trust your five senses and your experiences and to doubt those things that cannot be seen and whose 'activities' are open to question.

Your first question should be do you have faith in god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Further

 

If you believe the proof of the pudding comes down to personal experiences - and you really believe you've had these experiences - well...

Maybe reality is just personal interpretation of good and bad luck after all. But it hardly makes room for universal truth, does it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:1) What is

Paisley wrote:

1) What is faith?

2) Do you have faith?

As Bob said, there are two definitions. Unfortunately in the case both of the words "faith" and "belief" have been hijacked by religion and now seem to always mean blind faith and belief. I say unfortunate because I actually like both of the words. They are good for when you are sure of something (evidence based) but cannot be definite. I cannot believe in something, nor have faith in it without evidence.

 

I have faith that my girlfriend loves me. I have faith that my car will start. I have faith in lots of things, such as there is no real point in arguing with paisley because he is too irrational.

 

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Belief in God

Paisley wrote:

Belief in God is based on personal experiences.

What personal experience did you have that lead to your faith in god ?


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
SapphireMind wrote:I used to

SapphireMind wrote:

I used to have faith in god. 

Then I thought about it (clearly my first mistake Eye-wink )

Now I have faith and hope in a lot of things that are more tangible.  I hope that someone will recover from an illness.  I hope that my family will continue into the next decade.  I hope that society will become less violent.  I have faith that many people would like it if that were so. 

It appears that you are equating faith with hope. On that score, the basic difference between religious faith and secular faith is that secular faith is ultimately hopeless because it perceives life as being ultimately hopeless.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley! Good to see you

Paisley! Good to see you around again. Seriously.

You'll have to take it on faith that I'm sincere, but I really am.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Paisley

latincanuck wrote:

Paisley wrote:

That's irrelevant. A belief that is based on personal experience qualifies as your first definition of faith - a definition to which you have already gone on record and stated you have.

Of course it relevant, its completely relevant to the definition of faith, personal experience without any back up means squat,

I'm sorry, but you defined faith as "the trust or belief in the truthness or trust of a person, idea or thing that comes from experience" (your words, not mine).  Do you wish to now modify your previous definition?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:And

Atheistextremist wrote:

And there is the religious faith in magic stuff you are clearly alluding to.

What is the magic stuff that I am clearly alluding to in the OP?

Atheistextremist wrote:
 

They are not the same thing and it is obviously possible to trust your five senses and your experiences and to doubt those things that cannot be seen and whose 'activities' are open to question.

On that basis, then you should not employ any faith whatsoever (which is functionally impossible). That your car will start the next time you turn the ignition key is certainly open to question (all beliefs are open to question).

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: If

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

If you believe the proof of the pudding comes down to personal experiences - and you really believe you've had these experiences - well...

Maybe reality is just personal interpretation of good and bad luck after all. But it hardly makes room for universal truth, does it.

Well, how we perceive life and the world is based on our personal experiences and how we interpret those experiences. That probably accounts for the differences between believers and nonbelievers. Having said that, the nonbeliever has no basis that the universal truth can be known, not even if he or she believes that such a truth exists in theory.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote:As Bob said,

ronin-dog wrote:

As Bob said, there are two definitions. Unfortunately in the case both of the words "faith" and "belief" have been hijacked by religion and now seem to always mean blind faith and belief. I say unfortunate because I actually like both of the words. They are good for when you are sure of something (evidence based) but cannot be definite. I cannot believe in something, nor have faith in it without evidence.

Do you believe anyone can believe in something and have faith in it without evidence? If so, how is this accomplished?

ronin-dog wrote:
 

I have faith in lots of things, such as there is no real point in arguing with paisley because he is too irrational.

That's not really faith, but merely fear masquerading as faith. Flinging ad hominem attacks is an activity individuals engaged in because  they are suffering from a negative self-image and doubting their own self-worth.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:1) What is

Paisley wrote:

1) What is faith?

2) Do you have faith?

Paisley, where have you been?

Where's the video like Doomy asked.

You simply can't have a thread without a video it's uncharacteristic of you.

1)Faith - I knew you'd be back somehow.

2)See above. You're here, so my 'faith' was shown accurate.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:What

Anonymouse wrote:

What personal experience did you have that lead to your faith in god ?

Faith is based on a non-sensory (i.e. non-physical) perception of a spiritual or divine reality. It is an experience that I have always had. And it is an experience that is apparently universal (or nearly universal) because a belief in a spiritual or divine reality is ubiquitous.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Paisley, where have you been?

Where's the video like Doomy asked.

You simply can't have a thread without a video it's uncharacteristic of you.

1)Faith - I knew you'd be back somehow.

2)See above. You're here, so my 'faith' was shown accurate.

Yeah, apparently you do have faith. Everyone we encountered in the past, we will encounter again in the future. Such is the law of karma. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
ronin-dog wrote: I have

ronin-dog wrote:

 

I have faith in lots of things, such as there is no real point in arguing with paisley because he is too irrational.

 

Actually arguing with Paisley can be fun. He's not irrational at all, he has a specific agenda that he always promotes which is already surfacing in this new thread.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley!

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley! Good to see you around again. Seriously.

You'll have to take it on faith that I'm sincere, but I really am.

Oh, I believe you. After all, I'm a beacon of light shining in your gloomy world of darkness. What's not there to like?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:nigelTheBold

Paisley wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley! Good to see you around again. Seriously.

You'll have to take it on faith that I'm sincere, but I really am.

Oh, I believe you. After all, I'm a beacon of light shining in your gloomy world of darkness. What's not there to like?

More like a shadow that gives us a break from reason to laugh at you but hey, whatever works.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:latincanuck

Paisley wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Paisley wrote:

That's irrelevant. A belief that is based on personal experience qualifies as your first definition of faith - a definition to which you have already gone on record and stated you have.

Of course it relevant, its completely relevant to the definition of faith, personal experience without any back up means squat,

I'm sorry, but you defined faith as "the trust or belief in the truthness or trust of a person, idea or thing that comes from experience" (your words, not mine).  Do you wish to now modify your previous definition?

Oi this is going to be another of your games in which you completely ignore the definition of the word and use your own, I guess I have to get to the point of defining every word I use with you again.

With the first definition faith has the evidence to back up the experience and the truth or trust of the person, idea or thing, which is why the second definition has the part of lack of evidence, and like bob points out the contradictory evidence of the claim of truth. e.g. god created the universe, the world and all life in 7 days, the evidence contradicts that claim, however a believer still has faith that god is real. Where I have faith in my doctors ability to cure my illness because of his background experience and the evidence that he has cured this illness either from me or from others, which is the evidence I have to build that faith on and the evidence to back up the claim.

Faith in the first definition is not the same as religious faith at all, or faith in god, religious concepts or any other type of deity that has NO EVIDENCE to back up the claim of truth regarding them. You can claim personal experience but without the evidence to back up such a claim or even worse contradictory evidence to show that your claim is false, that is the faith of the second definition of faith that I gave to you.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Oi this is

latincanuck wrote:

Oi this is going to be another of your games in which you completely ignore the definition of the word and use your own, I guess I have to get to the point of defining every word I use with you again.

No, I used your definition of the term and now you are backpedalling and attempting to redefine the term because you can bring yourself to admit that your faith is based on personal experiences and interpretations.

latincanuck wrote:

With the first definition faith has the evidence to back up the experience and the truth or trust of the person, idea or thing, which is why the second definition has the part of lack of evidence, and like bob points out the contradictory evidence of the claim of truth. e.g. god created the universe, the world and all life in 7 days, the evidence contradicts that claim, however a believer still has faith that god is real.

But I don't believe that "God created the universe and the world in 7 days." So the implication that I obstinately cling to a theistic belief even when there is evidence to the contrary does not apply. The bottom line here is that  you cannot disprove the existence of God.

latincanuck wrote:
 

Where I have faith in my doctors ability to cure my illness because of his background experience and the evidence that he has cured this illness either from me or from others, which is the evidence I have to build that faith on and the evidence to back up the claim.

Faith in the first definition is not the same as religious faith at all, or faith in god, religious concepts or any other type of deity that has NO EVIDENCE to back up the claim of truth regarding them. You can claim personal experience but without the evidence to back up such a claim or even worse contradictory evidence to show that your claim is false, that is the faith of the second definition of faith that I gave to you.

What constitutes evidence and what does not is clearly open to personal interpretation.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"O ye of little faith." I

"O ye of little faith."

I blame you for disappearing. Sticking out tongue

"Okay. So, do you have faith?"

I thought I'd implied the answer, but yes. I have faith in my friends. Or at least, some of them, under certain circumstances.

"I fail to see how you can feel optimistic when your worldview is clearly devoid of all faith and hope."

But it isn't. I just have no faith or hope for things I can't or don't perceive. I have hope that our social nature will one day overcome our aggressive nature. I have faith that most of my friends are my friends. I don't have faith or hope in any god. Only I can live my life. Only I can be responsible for my actions, good and bad. Only I choose my destiny.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


fjp800
fjp800's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Faith is your

Marquis wrote:

Faith is your ability to trust and believe, unconditionally.

 

You should save your faith for whomever you decide to love. It is useless in all other contexts.

 

 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Damian wrote:I

Vastet wrote:

Damian wrote:

I fail to see how you can feel optimistic when your worldview is clearly devoid of all faith and hope.

But it isn't. I just have no faith or hope for things I can't or don't perceive.

Let me further elaborate on my previous post. Hope is forward-looking. You ultimately have nothing to hope for because you ultimately have nothing to look forward to. Your eventual fate is simply to cease to exist. That's not a hopeful outlook; it's a morbid one.

Vastet wrote:

Only I choose my destiny.

No, this is not true. Based on the worldview that is atheistic materialism, free will is ultimately illusory. You really have no choices. Moreover, you really have no purpose. What you call choices and intentions are nothing more than blind, purposeless, deterministic electro-chemical processes playing themselves.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Oh, I believe

Paisley wrote:

Oh, I believe you. After all, I'm a beacon of light shining in your gloomy world of darkness. What's not there to like?

I've missed your self-deprecating, ironic humor most of all.

"Beacon of light." Heh. I'll be chuckling all night.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Vastet

Paisley wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Damian wrote:

I fail to see how you can feel optimistic when your worldview is clearly devoid of all faith and hope.

But it isn't. I just have no faith or hope for things I can't or don't perceive.

Let me further elaborate on my previous post. Hope is forward-looking. You ultimately have nothing to hope for because you ultimately have nothing to look forward to. Your eventual fate is simply to cease to exist. That's not a hopeful outlook; it's a morbid one.

Vastet wrote:

Only I choose my destiny.

No, this is not true. Based on the worldview that is atheistic materialism, free will is ultimately illusory. You really have no choices. Moreover, you really have no purpose. What you call choices and intentions are nothing more than blind, purposeless, deterministic electro-chemical processes playing themselves.

Even if you have a hope of a magic afterlife, the fact is that you still cease to exist. Not morbid, just real.

As for free will - which is better? Electrochemistry or the hope that the magic you pray to has made the right choices for you?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5880
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
My world-view is best

My world-view is best described as Scientific Naturalism, a more accurate description the Atheistic Materialism, since 'Atheism' is a natural consequence of the rational, evidence-based, outlook rather than a presupposition.

Atheism follows from the rational consideration of the available evidence, which does not point to a God, which no longer works as an explanation for existence as it may once have when there was far less knowledge of the nature and origins of the Universe and Life.

Reductionist 'Materialism' doesn't work either, since we now recognize the extreme importance of structure, complexity, and process, which make the difference between mere matter and structured, complex objects, like galaxies and living creatures. And such concepts are not material objects in themselves.

There is a lot of reason for despair in looking at modern society, and it is understandable why people might cling to comforting illusions like the self-deception we refer to as religious faith, that there is some super entity ultimately in charge, who offers us the prospect of some form of resolution, and the promise of a life after worldly death.

If everyone closes their eyes to the truth that there is no reason, other than a forlorn and desperate hope, to believe in such things, then it will almost guarantee that modern society will end in disaster as we run out of resources and over-crowd our planet. Our only hope is for at least some people to remain clear-eyed and work at possible ways forward rather than sink into the fantasy worlds of religion, and other forms of reality-denial.

As to free-will, it is obviously an 'illusion' that our choices have some independent element, apart from of all the memories and moods and desires and reactions to events that make up our flow of consciousness, but the existence of such an illusion is an intrinsic aspect of consciousness.

I see from your responses so far in this thread, Paisley, that you are still stuck in your blinkered straw-man characterization of 'Atheistic Materialism' as the only alternative to some sort of Supernatural Dualism, so I don't expect any serious response to this.

Your apparent refusal to even acknowledge the distinction between the ordinary use of 'faith' as a stronger form of trust, and the other usage as total acceptance of some dogma or doctrine in spite of lack of evidence, or even in the face of counter-evidence shows the same tired old pattern of your earlier threads.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

No, this is not true. Based on the worldview that is atheistic materialism, free will is ultimately illusory. You really have no choices. Moreover, you really have no purpose. What you call choices and intentions are nothing more than blind, purposeless, deterministic electro-chemical processes playing themselves.

Even if you have a hope of a magic afterlife, the fact is that you still cease to exist. Not morbid, just real.

The bottom line here is that believing that consciousness ceases to exist at the moment of physical death engenders pessimism, not optimism. Your "realistic" view of the world presents an outlook on life that is ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. There is no other way to characterize it. And I would argue that the vast majority of humanity see it my way because atheistic materialism is clearly not selling in the market place of ideas.

Incidentally, there is a plethora of NDEs (i.e. near death experiences) that provide evidence that consciousness does not cease to exist at the moment of physical death.

jcgadfly wrote:

As for free will - which is better? Electrochemistry or the hope that the magic you pray to has made the right choices for you?

Your response does not address the argument that I made in my previous post - namely, that the atheist cannot chose his destiny in light of the fact that his blind, deterministic worldview precludes the reality of free will and intentional acts.  

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead