Dualism

[Edwardo Piet]

Your logic isn't working Evie. Faith isn't "irrational belief" because it has no evidence.

Well I dealt with that in my why I think the term "Rational faith" is an oxymoron thread.

Belief can have no evidence either!

Faith is belief without evidence. Belief can have or be without it, without it it's faith, so with it it's belief based on evidence of course. That's what evidence is for - it's what gives credence to the truth of a belief.

You're not allowed to define belief differently from the rest of us.

I don't believe I am? I believe gravity is true. It is also a fact; so I know it, but I do personally believe it too because I do not deny it, I don't disbelieve it. There's an example of how I quite obviously believe in the fact of gravity. Cos I don't not believe it!!

Like I said, if you believe something you don't have to "know" it because you could be wrong. But if you do know it because it's indeed, a fact then you cannot know it and not believe it. You have to also believe it to know it.

If you disbelieve and reject something that is a fact, then you specifically don't subjectively know it, do you? Because you deny it. It is known, but not by you because you disbelieve it.

You don't make the rules. We use a common language which we have to agree on, or we can get no-where.

Yes. But I disagree that the normal definition of belief is that all beliefs are false and you cannot believe a fact.

No, you can't believe in a 'fact' on faith.

I agree.

That's another oxymoron.

Yes.

Because faith is without logical support, it is merely belief without evidence as we have said in our other conversations here. Now you seem to be saying that all belief is without evidence. But what I understand is that specifically "Faith" is belief without evidence. Belief itself doesn't have to be without evidence, it is just "Faith"...that is, indeed, specifically without evidence.

If it were a fact, you wouldn't need faith to believe in it.

Agreed.

You wouldn't need to 'believe' it... because you'd know.

If you know it then it would have to be 'known' by you. Which means the fact that it is known (because it's a fact) - means you'd have to believe it to be a fact. Otherwise you disbelieve the fact!! When you apparently know it. It makes no sense to say "I know gravity is true but I don't believe it is."

You can believe with evidence too!! If you believe in something that has evidence to support it basically!

Evidence is what gives credence to a belief!. It's a reason to believe! You believe on evidence! or 'on faith' (without evidence).

You want to talk about God and religion but you can't accept belief or faith.

I obviously except belief. There are many things I believe and many I disbelieve (don't believe).

What I don't accept is the idea that it is ever logical to believe things without evidence, believing 'on faith'. How is it? Until I know of a reason to believe it is, I won't. And I'm not going to accept 'on faith' that believing anything (Or anything in particular! - Cherry picked out!!) 'on faith' itself is a rational thing to do! So I cannot accept faith unless it gets shown to somehow be a genuine logical alternative to evidence. But by definition I don't see how it can be exactly! Evidence specifically means logical indication that something actually exists! How could the absence of evidence be logical in the matter of believing something then??

Religion, being about belief in God, is beyond what you're prepared to think about.

Why would or should I, is my question? Where exactly is any rational reason to believe in such? Why would I just let go of my brain and believe in God? I'm going to need logical reasons to believe such a God exists first of course. That's why believing "On Faith" is always irrational IMO - because it's delusional to believe something for no reason whatsoever. Because if there was reason to believe in the actual existence of "God" (or whatever) then that would be evidence of his existing! So it wouldn't be faith! (I don't understand how many times I have to explain this before I will finally get a response to this point. This point being a question of "how exactly, can believing in the existence of something, without evidence - ever be rational?".

"belief without evidence" another oxymoron. belief HAS TO BE without evidence.

As we have said before in our conversations. Faith is belief without evidence! Evidence is what you base belief on! So of course belief without evidence is not an oxymoron! Faith without evidence does not make sense on the other hand; because Faith is belief without evidence, so faith without evidence would="Belief without evidence without Evidence" - doesn't make any sense.

You can't dismiss something from it's definition.

I'm not. How exactly can someone 'know' and fact to be true and at the same time, not believe in the fact? So you can only disbelieve facts then???? But that would mean that everyone denies the facts! Not true of course!!

Evidence= what gives credence to a belief. So of course belief can be based on evidence. Faith on the other hand cannot tho, when it is defined simply as "belief without evidence" of course.

Your whole anti religion stance is totally unsupportable and illogical.

I have no idea where you got that idea from!!

There is no evidence that any "God" exists so to believe anyway is illogical because there's no indication that it actually exists (if there was it would be evidence by definition)

I'm against that because it's irrational and there's no reason to believe such thinking has any bearing on the truth. And I have no idea how being against that is illogical!!

EvF