(March 17, 2014 at 5:52 pm)discipulus Wrote: Pull up a chair and have a seat. In this thread I invite atheists and agnostics to discuss the topic of faith.

What is faith?

An exhibition of irrational certitude in irrational ideas.

Quote:We all know that faith is an important aspect of Christianity. But what about atheism? Does an atheist exercise faith?

No.

Quote:If so, how?

In what way?

Nope.

Quote:I maintain that many atheists do indeed exercise faith despite what they may say about it.

So let us begin the discussion.

Then clearly you're not using the term 'faith' consistently.

---

(March 17, 2014 at 6:10 pm)discipulus Wrote: You trust in the reliability of your cognitive faculties do you not?

---

Does this necessitate irrational certitude in our cognitive faculties? No it does not unless we're claiming infallibility. Our cognitive faculties could be misrepresenting what the world actually is. Or so a snake would probably argue (or a Christian for that matter). Does it involve an irrational idea? No it does not because this would be self-defeating.

Quote:how do you know logic and science are reliable in their respective uses?

We don't unless we test them out in the world... in which case it's self-defeating to outright deny the existence of objects (even if they're illusory) that thoughts and words represent to us.

(March 18, 2014 at 10:23 am)Alex K Wrote: Can I pn you about a very interesting non-circular investment opportunity with great interest returns in the first year?

Yes of course. The last 7 times this happened I was scammed, but since I frown on using evidence I'm going to ignore that.

(March 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: IMHO faith is roughly equivalent to trust. People express their trust in people, things, and ideas. I trust my wife, I trust bridges (most of the time), and I trust some ideas enough to live my life in accordance with them. In the realm of ideas I trust the belief that honesty is the best policy. I trust that my senses do not overtly decisive me. I take it on faith that other people have minds.

And here's where your equivalency of faith and trust falls apart:

Quote:I have faith that reality exists apart from individual minds. And I trust that God exists and living a good life involves loving what is good and true.

You see what you did there? You went from using trust in a sensible way to express a justified confidence in people and things that are actually known to exist, to the presumptuous assertion that Santa Claus is real (I mean God... but I prefer Santa because at least everyone knows what you're talking about then).

Quote:Few things are certain. Most everything else requires some degree of faith.

Equivocation. Back to using faith in the sensible form, or in other words, "everything requires some degree of presumption." Yes, and by 'everything' we mean 'that which is known to exist through our array of senses.' God is not one of those things, hence he has no requirements... except your imagination.

Quote:Can anyone be certain that God does not exist? No.

The Christian God? I'd bet my life on it.

Quote: But you trust your reasoning and have faith in its conclusions. I'm not certain that God exists but I consider it highly likely based on my reflections on life and I try to live accordingly.

Again, you're talking about necessary assumptions we have to make versus unnecessary and unsubstantiated assertions pulled out of thin air. They're not the same. We could always opt for Solipsism but that wouldn't mean other minds don't exist, it would just mean they don't exist in the manner we typically assume they do.

It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail. ~ Sam Harris

I read the first couple of pages of this thread. I'm not going to bother reading the whole thing. Instead, I'm just going to give Discipulus some advice, which applies not only to this thread, but also to at least one other that I've seen him start. I may be relatively new to AF, but I've been engaging in internet conversations for over 20 years (anyone here remember Usenet), so this advice is based on all that experience.

Don't start a thread with leading questions and then wait around for people to give the specific response you want so you can ask the next leading question in a series, until you eventually get to your point 10 pages later. You'll lose your intended audience along the way. This isn't the first thread where I might be willing to discuss your chosen topic if you told me what it is up front, but this whole leading Q&A thing in order to find out where you're going is just annoying.

Just put the point of the thread in the first post. If you want to use the Q&A format, then do it as a theoretical "conversation" with the questions and answers you want to discuss all in one post up front, instead of waiting around for people to stumble into the answer you're fishing for, so you can give them the next leading question.

(March 18, 2014 at 12:19 pm)Fromper Wrote: Don't start a thread with leading questions and then wait around for people to give the specific response you want so you can ask the next leading question in a series, until you eventually get to your point 10 pages later. You'll lose your intended audience along the way.

Good advice in general.
In this case, however, we all knew all the questions in the script as soon as he had uttered the first one

(March 17, 2014 at 7:22 pm)discipulus Wrote:

(March 17, 2014 at 7:16 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: You seem to be confusing atheists replacing faith with science, you are wrong. I have always been an atheist even before I knew anything about science.

And of course atheism was around before science.

There have always been people who found religion unconvincing.

No. Atheists exercise faith when they maintain that their cognitive faculties are reliable.

Eh what has this got to do with not finding your position true which is all atheism is.

Quote: Faith here simply means to trust in something without being able to prove said something is reliable.

So faith is belief in something without evidence, on this we agree.

Quote:There is no way for you or any other atheist to step outside of their five senses to test their veridicality.

We have many more than five senses but that's a different story.
Anyhoo, that is why science is required, science is (among other things) a way of testing and reviewing things to eliminate false positives. It sets up experiments that would show a positive response if the position was false. Scientists actively try to disprove their own theories by stress testing them then putting the results out to peer review where quite often they are rejected.

Quote:You just trust that they are reliable without proof that they are (here proof refers to something concrete and empirical).

Understand?

Yes I understand and I think its stupid to live your life based on an unproven proposition.

Understand?

(March 18, 2014 at 12:19 pm)Fromper Wrote: I read the first couple of pages of this thread. I'm not going to bother reading the whole thing. Instead, I'm just going to give Discipulus some advice, which applies not only to this thread, but also to at least one other that I've seen him start. I may be relatively new to AF, but I've been engaging in internet conversations for over 20 years (anyone here remember Usenet), so this advice is based on all that experience.

Don't start a thread with leading questions and then wait around for people to give the specific response you want so you can ask the next leading question in a series, until you eventually get to your point 10 pages later. You'll lose your intended audience along the way. This isn't the first thread where I might be willing to discuss your chosen topic if you told me what it is up front, but this whole leading Q&A thing in order to find out where you're going is just annoying.

Just put the point of the thread in the first post. If you want to use the Q&A format, then do it as a theoretical "conversation" with the questions and answers you want to discuss all in one post up front, instead of waiting around for people to stumble into the answer you're fishing for, so you can give them the next leading question.

Most posts are completely off topic to be fair. Which is highly illuminating and hopefully useful to some. You shouldn't try to put someone in a box just because they don't fit your ideal model. If you find it interesting, join in. of not, don't. The thread will survive on its merits.

(March 18, 2014 at 10:25 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: An exhibition of irrational certitude in irrational ideas.

Interesting. I see that definition no where in the dictionary......


faith [feyth] Show IPA
noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. -http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith


I do not know if you were joking or serious. Hard to tell with you sometimes. What reference did you get your definition from?

(March 18, 2014 at 10:25 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Then clearly you're not using the term 'faith' consistently.

Faith as I have been using it simply means to place firm trust in something.

(March 18, 2014 at 10:25 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Does this necessitate irrational certitude in our cognitive faculties? No it does not unless we're claiming infallibility. Our cognitive faculties could be misrepresenting what the world actually is. Or so a snake would probably argue (or a Christian for that matter). Does it involve an irrational idea? No it does not because this would be self-defeating.

But you trust in your cognitive faculties though? Yes or no?

(March 18, 2014 at 10:25 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: We don't unless we test them out in the world... in which case it's self-defeating to outright deny the existence of objects (even if they're illusory) that thoughts and words represent to us.

Even if you "test" logic and science by using them in the real world, you cannot use this to say they are reliable.. To do so would be to argue in a circle.

(March 18, 2014 at 5:46 pm)discipulus Wrote: Even if you "test" logic and science by using them in the real world, you cannot use this to say they are reliable.. To do so would be to argue in a circle.

That's where statistics come in!

How many positive results do you get when you solve a problem using logic and science, VS, how many positive results do you get when you solve a problem NOT using logic and science.

Care to wager as to which wins?