Quote:Faith=Belief in lack of evidence. 1=1 is true by definition, so is therefore absolutely proved because it is defined as being as such. Absolute proof is as strong as evidence as you can get, and if I had any evidence at all that 1=1, then, I by definition couldn't "have faith in it" (because faith lacks evidence). So no, I absolutely do not need faith to believe 1=1. That's the very opposite of having faith.

It's as if you are arguing that everything requires faith. Which makes the whole concept of faith meaningless. It makes it no different from trust. Faith is irrational trust because it is without evidence. Trusting evidence isn't having faith in evidence because the trust is evidence-based. So it is therefore not faith-based...which is the opposite.

Well, to you and me the concept of A=A is absolute... but we still believe in it (even if it seems obvious... unless you are suggesting we are not confident and trusting in what seems obvious???)

Adrian finds his way to say that my computer could = a pony (another thing from AA), even though I think it is as obvious as absolute as 1=1 (The Identity's Equality). So I guess it really does all take faith

Faith is commonly used in instances where there is a lot of faith needed... but even when there is just a little bit of it (Identity's Equality is the most 'obvious' and 'absolute' as I think possible)... the same thing behind faith in gods (confidence, trust, belief) is present in that little blink Everything does require faith... just some things require a mind-boggling amount of it... and others not an amount worth mentioning


Justification is a prerequisite for faith... no matter how stupid or ridiculous it is It might be scientific proof, or it might be "The voices told me so!"... but faith is never unjustified. Well justified faith... I call that evidence... and at the greatest ends of it: proof. Poorly justified faith... I call that unreasonable... and at the lowest ends: ridiculous.

It all depends on how you are defining faith I use the word to group belief, trust, and confidence together... you use it to describe a particular level of my use. It is all a lingual thing really

If you have faith, then there can't be any evidence or it wouldn't be faith.

If there's evidence, then you don't need faith, or you wouldn't have evidence.

If well justified faith has evidence then since it has evidence, it's not faith. Trust in evidence is not faith, it's rational trust. Faith is irrational trust since it lacks evidence.

To do an analogy:

Any trust does not="Faith", which more specifically, lacks evidence and (almost certainly) cannot be rational. Just as any Will does not="Free Will", which, more specifically would require the Will to control itself when it is what does the controlling.

Because it seems as though you are equating trust as always being faith, just as it seems you equate all "choices" as being "free choices". Yes all faith is trust - but not all trust is faith. Yes all "free choices" are free - but not all choices are "Free" (I, for one, don't believe any of them are, but that's another matter).

EvF

I define faith to mean Rainbows made of chocolate so now I am going to eat faith spread over icecream. Although Icecream is really science and rainbows are religion and religion is grass. So I am really eating chocolate grass over science all while I am really a girl because I feel like it. Pay no attention to my penis!

Rhizo

PS Penis really just means pony so I wasn't being vulgar

(October 26, 2009 at 5:40 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: I define faith to mean Rainbows made of chocolate so now I am going to eat faith spread over icecream. Although Icecream is really science and rainbows are religion and religion is grass. So I am really eating chocolate grass over science all while I am really a girl because I feel like it. Pay no attention to my penis!

1. ROFL, very funny, wildly amusing. Please entertain us again sometime 2. Back on those shrooms again eh Rhiz? 3. Do you have a point in this? LOL

EvF

(October 26, 2009 at 5:36 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If you have faith, then there can't be any evidence or it wouldn't be faith.

If there's evidence, then you don't need faith, or you wouldn't have evidence.

If well justified faith has evidence then since it has evidence, it's not faith. Trust in evidence is not faith, it's rational trust. Faith is irrational trust since it lacks evidence.

To do an analogy:

Any trust does not="Faith", which more specifically, lacks evidence and (almost certainly) cannot be rational. Just as any Will does not="Free Will", which, more specifically would require the Will to control itself when it is what does the controlling.

Because it seems as though you are equating trust as always being faith, just as it seems you equate all "choices" as being "free choices". Yes all faith is trust - but not all trust is faith. Yes all "free choices" are free - but not all choices are "Free" (I, for one, don't believe any of them are, but that's another matter).

EvF

I can see how that would conflict with your forum name, EvidenceVsFaith

As far as I know... Evidence just gives a person all the more reason to believe something is true

Justification=reasons. Evidence attempts to indicate whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. To believe because of evidence is much more justifiable... than believing because somebody you trust told you it was true. And placing one's belief in decent proof is a extremely justifiable position... just as believing because nature looks like it might have been designed = designed is a ridiculous and hardly justifiable position.

Trust in evidence is like trust in myself and my friends... Trust = confidence = belief = faith Of course, it only equals faith so far as the basic ideas behind all of them go... and people usually use faith to refer to believing something without, or even in spite of evidence. I just think that such a position requires a lot of faith... whereas proof requires but a blink if it is good proof

Your analogy isn't true because we always need a reason to believe in something... even if that reason is ridiculous In other words: we need a reason to have faith... we need some sort of evidence before we can believe in anything... even if that evidence is only so much as "It feels right" or Pascals Wager.

Sorry, no point really

(October 26, 2009 at 6:26 pm)Saerules Wrote: I can see how that would conflict with your forum name, EvidenceVsFaith

How so?

Quote:As far as I know... Evidence just gives a person all the more reason to believe something is true

No, evidence is a valid reason. It actually evidences (gives evidnece to) the belief if your belief is evidence-based. It gives a valid reason to believe, or the valid reason to believe. A belief is rational if you have valid reason to believe in it, or IOW, if there is evidence that your belief is true. Evidence doesn't just give reason, it gives valid reason, it is valid reason.

Quote:Trust in evidence is like trust in myself and my friends... Trust = confidence = belief = faith

Confidence and truck can be with or without evidence. Faith cannot, faith lacks evidence. You don't have to "have faith" in things that have evidential support. You only need to 'trust' in the sense you'd be crazy not to with all the evidence in your face *thinks of creationists and holocaust deniers, etc.*.

Quote: Of course, it only equals faith so far as the basic ideas behind all of them go... and people usually use faith to refer to believing something without, or even in spite of evidence.

Yes as I said, I do think that - because that's what the dictionary says and it's a common usage. Faith is more than just belief or trust, it's more specific than that. The connotation is different.

Quote: I just think that such a position requires a lot of faith... whereas proof requires but a blink if it is good proof

But if the evidence is valid then it must be true or it isn't actually evidence, it is merely believed to be so. If the proof is invalid however, then your belief is not evidence-based and so it is faith-based.

What one believes to be evidence is different to what actually is evidence. If I believe the very existence of fruit to be evidence of the existence of a giant invisible intangible Pixie called Kevin Franklin, that doesn't mean it's actually evidence - just that I believe it is.

Quote:Your analogy isn't true because we always need a reason to believe in something... even if that reason is ridiculous

If the reason lacks evidence then it needs faith - it's not a matter of whether it is "ridiculous" or not per se - it's not a matter of 'personal incredulity', it's a matter of whether there's evidence or not. If a reason to believe has evidence supporting it then it's a rational reasoning, that's valid. If a reason to believe does not have evidence supporting it, then the belief must by definition be a faith-based belief as opposed to evidence-based, since it lacks evidence.

Faith is belief without evidence. "Faith-based" thinking is the exact opposite to "Evidence based" thinking.

Quote:In other words: we need a reason to have faith... we need some sort of evidence before we can believe in anything... even if that evidence is only so much as "It feels right" or Pascals Wager.

See my insane pixie example above. Whether one believes they have evidence or not, does not mean that one actually has it.

If your belief has evidence, has actual, valid indication - then your belief is evidence based, it doesn't require faith. If your belief does not have evidence, then you by definition must have a faith-based belief because it lacks evidence.

Faith is belief that lacks evidence. If it is merely to be used to mean a word such as "trust" then trust is perhaps a better word to be using on the matter since "Faith" also has this connotation of necessarily lacking evidence, and it also has a religious connotation, etc.

EvF

"So are you suggesting that Rhizo, an atheist, is demontrating ignorance about atheism? Maybe you need to get this straight with the other atheists before you begin to accuse me of being ignorant about atheism."

Nice way to dodge my post in response to your so called statement that it took faith to be an atheist there rjh4. And my response stays the same regardless of what other atheists think since I am not speaking for other atheists, I am speaking for myself and what I think about the issue. That is the beauty about atheism we are free to believe or disbelieve whatever we want and are not like yourself bound by doctrines and interpretations of an religious establishment. Atheism is free thought unlike Christianity and their pathetic dogmas.

Craveman Wrote:What about the inconsistancies in the Bible?

OK, let me clear that up: So if we forget the fact that the Bible was man-made, probably mostly forged, written well after Christ's death, the inconsistancies I mentioned would be al the contradictions (there are many) and the fact that a moral and loving God created Hell. Noah's ark story: A loving God killing thousands? O, sorry they were all sinners so they deserved it then? What about the poor "innocent" animals then?

rhj4 Wrote:Have you read the article I cited?

Yes and what a fucking waste of time it was!

Here are some of his quotes:
You, of course, do not expect me to bring God into the room here so that you may see Him. If I were able to do that, He would not be the God of Christianity Why not? Why can't God reveal himself to us? He DID appear to people back in the good old days...

I was "conditioned" in the most thorough fashion. I could not help believing in God -- in the God of Christianity -- in the God of the whole Bible! "Conditioned" is just another nice name for being brainwashed which he just admitted to!

Shall we say then that in my early life I was conditioned to believe in God, while you were left free to develop your own judgment as you pleased? But that will hardly do. You know as well as I that every child is conditioned by its environment. You were as thoroughly conditioned not to believe in God as I was to believe in God Bullshit! I was raised a Christian and converted to atheism when I started asking questions.

If the God of Christianity exists, the evidence for His existence is abundant and plain so that it is both unscientific and sinful not to believe in Him. Bullshit. Give some examples. Please spare us the "faith" and "I was in awe of complex life"...

You see then that I might present to you great numbers of facts to prove the existence of God. I might say that every effect needs a cause. I might point to the wonderful structure of the eye as evidence of God's purpose in nature. Natural selection...

So you see when I was young I was conditioned on every side; I could not help believing in God. Now that I am older I still cannot help believing in God. I believe in God now because unless I have Him as the All-Conditioner, life is Chaos. Again, admitting he was conditioned (brainwashed) so how can he form an unbiased opinion?

(October 27, 2009 at 6:38 am)Craveman Wrote:

Craveman Wrote:What about the inconsistancies in the Bible?

OK, let me clear that up: So if we forget the fact that the Bible was man-made, probably mostly forged, written well after Christ's death, the inconsistancies I mentioned would be al the contradictions (there are many) and the fact that a moral and loving God created Hell. Noah's ark story: A loving God killing thousands? O, sorry they were all sinners so they deserved it then? What about the poor "innocent" animals then?

I still am unclear as to what your point is because the god you are describing here does not appear to be the God of the Bible. It is true that the God of the Bible is loving and merciful, but He is also just and judge. The God of the Bible has many attributes but is certainly not all of any one of them but is the perfect blend of all of them. So the fact that God created hell is not inconsistent with the God of the Bible. The fact that God allows even Christians to die is not inconsistent with the God of the Bible. As for the animals, I do not see how this is relevant at all. Have you ever killed anything? A fly, a mosquito, a mouse, an ant? I'm quite sure that a person cannot live to your age and not have done that. Does that make you unloving or immoral? I don't think so. So I think the problem here so far is not inconsistencies in the Bible but your misconception of who and what the God of the Bible is.