Okay, John, let's skip the Internet definitions of faith. Here's one I found in a book that sounds good to me:

"...though it is wholly arbitrary and this does nothing to ensure that you are more correct than anyone else."

That's sounds about right to me, and doesn't deal with "material evidence." There is just no way to prove that faith is more true, although I can go take a chemistry class and learn a few hundred ways that chemicals react with each other. I can take a psychology class and learn how humans react to mental influences. That would be discovering truths. Faith does not. That's why science is closer to the truth. It can be tested and verified again and again. Faith is only verified by random chance, and even then saying it is "verified" is a stretch of the facts, since answers to prayers and unexplainable blessings are completely unpredictable and cannot be repeated, no matter how much you pray or believe in God.

Believe in learning knowledge, not making wishes.

UGGGG,

Mark Twain, "Faith is believing in things you know ain't so".

It is nothing more than the selfish narcissism of the person who wishes their fictional super hero were real. If no one wants to die and they know they will, they make up shit because they don't want to face it.

Batman really is out there saving Gotham. You just have to have faith in him.

(September 27, 2013 at 6:17 pm)Beta Ray Bill Wrote: Okay, John, let's skip the Internet definitions of faith. Here's one I found in a book that sounds good to me:

"...though it is wholly arbitrary and this does nothing to ensure that you are more correct than anyone else."

Er, no, I'll stick with mainstream sources for definitions of common words, thank you.

Quote:That's sounds about right to me, and doesn't deal with "material evidence." There is just no way to prove that faith is more true, although I can go take a chemistry class and learn a few hundred ways that chemicals react with each other. I can take a psychology class and learn how humans react to mental influences. That would be discovering truths. Faith does not. That's why science is closer to the truth. It can be tested and verified again and again. Faith is only verified by random chance, and even then saying it is "verified" is a stretch of the facts, since answers to prayers and unexplainable blessings are completely unpredictable and cannot be repeated, no matter how much you pray or believe in God.

You've set up a false dichotomy of science v. faith. I have no problem incorporating both repeatable testable science and faith in my life.

(September 28, 2013 at 8:07 am)John V Wrote: You've set up a false dichotomy of science v. faith. I have no problem incorporating both repeatable testable science and faith in my life.

So can I ask why you have faith in this particular thing and not, say, some other religion? Is it just personal reasons, or are you measuring them all based upon the science, or what?

(September 28, 2013 at 8:54 am)Esquilax Wrote: So can I ask why you have faith in this particular thing and not, say, some other religion?

Seeing as I was discussing differences in evidence for various beliefs for several pages, no, you may not just ask that as if it's a new question.

(September 28, 2013 at 10:21 am)John V Wrote: Seeing as I was discussing differences in evidence for various beliefs for several pages, no, you may not just ask that as if it's a new question.

Well, if you're just going to recourse to faith to cover gaps in the facts, why give christianity preferential treatment?

Oh, and I think you've got vastly lower standards for what you'd consider compelling evidence than I, in that case.

(September 28, 2013 at 1:01 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Well, if you're just going to recourse to faith to cover gaps in the facts, why give christianity preferential treatment?

I've already explained some ways in which Christianity is better supported than some other things people believe in. You have a false dichotomy. That belief in two concepts each requires faith does not mean that they are equally supported.

Quote:Oh, and I think you've got vastly lower standards for what you'd consider compelling evidence than I, in that case.

I'm sure I do. Likewise, you probably have vastly lower standards of evidence for things such as evolution and abiogenesis than I do.

(September 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm)John V Wrote: I've already explained some ways in which Christianity is better supported than some other things people believe in. You have a false dichotomy. That belief in two concepts each requires faith does not mean that they are equally supported.

I guarantee you, the people who believe in those other things are saying the same thing about your religion. I guess that was what I was asking: given that faith exists solely to excuse those things you don't have evidence for, how far does the evidence need to retract from your position before you'd give up your faith?

Quote:I'm sure I do. Likewise, you probably have vastly lower standards of evidence for things such as evolution and abiogenesis than I do.

Oh, hush: evolution has a vast panoply of real, verifiable evidence supporting it, over many cross-corroboratory disciplines. We've made it happen ourselves, seen it in action in the wild, gotten nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record, and each of those things could have put a serious dent in the theory. Hell, my family breeds dogs; I've literally seen evolution happen, litter by litter. My standards could be crazy high and I'd still be able to satisfy them there.

And I don't accept abiogenesis completely. It has enough evidence behind it to merit consideration, but I'm not in the habit of accepting things until the evidence bears them out completely. So... hey. Kind of a divergence, but I'm happy to sort that out.

No faith needed.

(September 27, 2013 at 7:42 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Batman really is out there saving Gotham. You just have to have faith in him.

BLASPHEMER! Everyone knows it was Xena Warrior Princess.