Got into a discussion and basically it was asserted that "No one can know whether or not God exists or that there is life after death,but we have to have faith"

Then I said I'd rather go by fact than faith.

then she said "You have faith I'm a good friend don't you? We all need to have faith in something."

then it went into---"How can you not believe that you were not here for a purpose? all the time you could have died or when "so and so" told me her brother pushed her out of a car on the free way during rush hour and she rolled to safety? I believe everyone is here for a reason and won't die until that is fulfilled."

We don't really use the right words in English to communicate dramatically different concepts. Faith and faith are as dissimilar as the truth and Truth. Beliefs are of radically different qualities, from completely irrational to justified. A lot of people exploit this without realizing they're being intellectually dishonest, and people are really good at compartmentalizing. I can't tell you the number of Comparative Religions classes I've sat through where at least 2-3 students would get livid pissed and walk out.

As if the course title didn't tip them off that we'd be talking about sacred religious beliefs.

(May 29, 2014 at 7:52 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: We don't really use the right words in English to communicate dramatically different concepts. Faith and faith are as dissimilar as the truth and Truth. Beliefs are of radically different qualities, from completely irrational to justified. A lot of people exploit this without realizing they're being intellectually dishonest, and people are really good at compartmentalizing. I can't tell you the number of Comparative Religions classes I've sat through where at least 2-3 students would get livid pissed and walk out.

Yeah, this is the same principle used by the "Ray Charles is God" argument.

God is love
Love is blind
Ray Charles is blind
Ray Charles is God.

The fault in that argument involves equivocating various uses of the word "is", similarly to what your friend is doing with "faith". As her if she buys the Ray Charles is God argument and see if you can get her to see the flaw in her reasoning.

Also, even if her rationale were correct that "we all have faith in something", it doesn't follow that you should have faith in her particular brand of nonfalsifiable woo.

You have 'faith' that she is a good friend because (hopefully) she has demonstrated that to you. You have good reason to believe that the good friend status will continue. That is only one kind of faith which can also be called trust. It is justified and has a basis.

Another kind of faith is the kind that religious people talk about a lot. It's the kind of faith where someone you trust tells you something extraordinary without any evidence to back it up and you have 'faith' that it's true contrary to all available data.

The first kind of faith doesn't actually need to be called faith, it has other useful names, the second kind however, you don't need to have that, it really doesn't serve anyone.

I believe there is a purpose to everything.
But I define fulfilled purpose as whatever actually happens subsequently so I've always been proven correct.

If faith is belief in the absence of evidence, then is the faith that (insert current celebrity heartthrob here) would be madly in love with me if they only met me the same as faith that the all powerful lord of creation loves me and wants me to be happy?

(Evidence of beer is evidence. Even if Franklin was misquoted.)

(May 29, 2014 at 7:48 pm)k2490 Wrote: Got into a discussion and basically it was asserted that "No one can know whether or not God exists or that there is life after death,but we have to have faith"

No one can know whether God exists and actually punishes the stupid ones that believe in him despite the lack of evidence. Without evidence this is on an equal footing to Christianity.
Interestingly this is the same argument the magic bean salesman uses "I can't prove my magic beans work, but you have to have faith that they do".

I hate all this "We're here for a purpose" shit. Provide some evidence for this statement, not more nonsense like "well, we have to be" etc etc.

(May 30, 2014 at 10:17 am)CherishSin Wrote: You have 'faith' that she is a good friend because (hopefully) she has demonstrated that to you. You have good reason to believe that the good friend status will continue. That is only one kind of faith which can also be called trust. It is justified and has a basis.

Another kind of faith is the kind that religious people talk about a lot. It's the kind of faith where someone you trust tells you something extraordinary without any evidence to back it up and you have 'faith' that it's true contrary to all available data.

The first kind of faith doesn't actually need to be called faith, it has other useful names, the second kind however, you don't need to have that, it really doesn't serve anyone.

I agree with this! It's not exactly faith she is a good friend,it's my trust of her. Trust vs blind faith

If I had no evidence that a person was a good friend, or evidence to the contrary - it would simply be impossible for me to consider them as such. I'm pretty sure human beings don't generally operate at this level of incredulity at any point. Seems like a special exception is being made. That's the thing about "faith"...it's very..very special..........

(May 29, 2014 at 7:48 pm)k2490 Wrote: Got into a discussion and basically it was asserted that "No one can know whether or not God exists or that there is life after death,but we have to have faith"

Then I said I'd rather go by fact than faith.

then she said "You have faith I'm a good friend don't you? We all need to have faith in something."

then it went into---"How can you not believe that you were not here for a purpose? all the time you could have died or when "so and so" told me her brother pushed her out of a car on the free way during rush hour and she rolled to safety? I believe everyone is here for a reason and won't die until that is fulfilled."

Sister asks a very important question, she says that, there was plenty of times where she could have died, but she didn't and so, she must have a purpose to fulfill before she can die.

To answer this, first I'll say that if she died, we wouldn't be having this conversation first of all, and thus, it's very easy for a person to come up with reasons why she survived, including the fact that no car ran her over. And I also know that many people died without ever fulfilling their purpose such as Kennedy or Hitler. So no.

I believe that human beings are the result of the Universe trying to figure itself out. So our purpose as human beings are the following:

1) Figure out this Universe and attempt to preserve life by being in control.
2) Seek out a male/female sex partner that makes us want to settle down.
3) Eat, drink and posses that which matters to us and brings us joy.
4) Seek out the chemicals of bliss by all means, dopamine, 6-MAM, oxitocyn and cannabinoids without seriously compromising 1), 2) and 3).

To complete my answer, the sister seems to cover her anxiety with that theory. What she experiences is post traumatic stress. Same as when a soldier is shot in the scalp and some hair flies off, he/she can't help but wonder what would have happened if the bullet went a little lower. It is a pickle indeed. This is a psychiatric disorder that is treated with medication and not rumors or faith. I myself have faced that type of anxiety and have observed that chewing nicotine gum up into the sedation range permanently destroyed the neurons responsible for that terrible feeling. I believe that feeling is produced by the amygdala of the brain but a psychiatrist would provide a more detailed answer.

(May 29, 2014 at 7:48 pm)k2490 Wrote: Got into a discussion and basically it was asserted that "No one can know whether or not God exists or that there is life after death,but we have to have faith"

Then I said I'd rather go by fact than faith.

then she said "You have faith I'm a good friend don't you? We all need to have faith in something."

You might tell your friend that reasonable expectation =/= faith. One can have reasonable expectation that a friend is loyal and supportive, but the moment said friend stabs you in the back all 'faith' goes out the window.

By comparison, faith in the sense your friend wants to apply it must be defended against all evidence to the contrary. That's why we get theists twisting themselves into knots that would put the one at Gordium to shame.

(May 29, 2014 at 7:48 pm)k2490 Wrote: then it went into---"How can you not believe that you were not here for a purpose? all the time you could have died or when "so and so" told me her brother pushed her out of a car on the free way during rush hour and she rolled to safety? I believe everyone is here for a reason and won't die until that is fulfilled."

By that token, history's greatest murderers were also here for a purpose, and the purpose of those they killed must have been to be victims. One can certainly look back at the path they followed in their life but it's insane to conclude that there's only one path that could possibly have led to the present moment. Had your friend been killed in the car incident, she wouldn't be here to say "how special I am that I wasn't killed - God must want me for some purpose".