Dualism

[Eilonnwy]

Okay, I'm jumping into the argument late but I believe (lol) that EvF says Belief can be based on knowledge or faith, but Fr0d0 says belief and faith are essentially the same thing? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I would like to point out an entry on Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

I've always understood faith to be specifically belief without proof, but belief itself can be based on proof and sometimes not.

Everyone has beliefs whether they base them on evidence/logic/faith. So to say that I personally have no beliefs because I'm an atheist is silly. While yes, atheism in it's simple form is a lack of belief in a god, I personally believe there is no personal god. I believe when I die I'm dead. I believe there are no ghosts. These are beliefs I have that I chose to base on evidence. I used to believe in the opposite of those things and I used to think I had evidence to believe in these things.

I would say belief is an overarching term but faith is specific for meaning "Belief without proof".

[fr0d0]

I think I need Evie to work that out E. Belief, especially in the context we're discussing, is never based on proof. Show me where belief needs proof.

Yes everyone has beliefs. I'm certainly not proposing that atheists are beliefless, as you've given examples of. Point is, the statement "I don't believe in God because there is no evidence", or as Evie has made into his name, "Evidence vs Faith" are precisely oxymoron's.

If you believed that you had proof, then you were seriously deluded. I believe in God and know very well there is no, and can be no proof. Therefore your position that belief in God is deluded because of lack of evidence is absurd, I'd hope you agree.

Great to see you on the staff BTW

[Eilonnwy]

Well I think the argument shows the stubborn opposition we have as non-believers and you have as a believer. You recognize and admit that your belief is not based on fact, and that's fine, but many would assert that they believe in god because they have evidence. What it comes down to is that for you, belief in god and things religious is never based on fact. That's fine, it's your right to believe that, but that's very unique to you in my experience with believers. If I asked my mother why she believes she would list a few different reasons. One of them would be a faith issue, but she'd also mention, the bible, Jesus, and a personal experience that she constantly tries to tell me about to convince me that there has to be something (And it frustrates her to no end that I reject it)

If you believed that you had proof, then you were seriously deluded.

Ha! For once we agree, but for very different reasons.

I believe in God and know very well there is no, and can be no proof.

Which is a position you hold but is not true of other Christians, and that's simple fact.

Therefore your position that belief in God is deluded because of lack of evidence is absurd, I'd hope you agree.

If I accepted the premise that to belief in god can have no evidence, yes. That's consistent with the worldview, but I don't subscribe to that worldview so essentially we'll never come to agreement.

The fact that you say evidence is not a requirement for belief in god and I say it is, means we can't really take the conversation any further. It's a conversation stopper.

At the end of the day the specific word belief most certainly can apply to things you believe on evidence. Yes, words are very important in how we communicate and that is the specific meaning of the word.

Great to see you on the staff BTW

Thank you.

[Edwardo Piet]

Okay, I'm jumping into the argument late but I believe (lol) that EvF says Belief can be based on knowledge or faith,

Correct....

but Fr0d0 says belief and faith are essentially the same thing?

it certainly seems so! As I have been trying to say him. He seems to be playing with words, before fr0d0 treated faith as belief without evidence but now he seems to be saying that all belief is without evidence!. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I've always understood faith to be specifically belief without proof, but belief itself can be based on proof and sometimes not.

That's how I understand it too. There is nothing in the dictionary that says belief=belief without evidence! Belief just=belief! Faith[=belief without evidence/'proof'.

Everyone has beliefs whether they base them on evidence/logic/faith.

Indeed

I would say belief is an overarching term but faith is specific for meaning "Belief without proof".

I agree.


As you said on your first thread...you are now saying again that my name...Evidence Vs Faith is an oxymoron, which is, quite frankly utterly ridiculous. Faith is belief without evidence - just as darkness is absence of life. Saying Evidence Vs Faith is an oxymoron is like saying Light Vs Darkness is an oxymoron! Light darkness or dark brightness is yes...but not when you add the vs!! Vs=Versus right? 'Good Evil' or 'Bitter Sweet' is also an oxymoron. But Good Vs Evil or Bitter Vs Sweet is not!

Last time you said that you were 'not so serious that part' when Adrian corrected you on your first thread...and I quote:

EvidenceVsFaith

An oximoran in a name

Adrian's response:

How is it an oximoron? His username is "EvidenceVsFaith". In other words, evidence versus faith. In other words (in case you still don't get it), a reference to the battle between the rational (who use evidence) and the faithful (who use faith). EvidenceVsFaith sides with the rational side.

And you answer with

Hi

I wasn't so serious with that - yes I understand what it means - it remains a nonsensical battle.

so....you are back on saying my name is an oxymoron again, huh? Are you actually serious this time?

Not believing in God because there's not evidence is obviously not an oxymoron if you know what an oxymoron is.

I don't believe in God because there's no evidence. Yes to believe in God you can't have evidence if as you say evidence for God is impossible because he's unprovable and unfalsifiable...but I I certainly don't need to believe in God!!

If you cannot have evidence to believe in God that does not mean that believing without evidence is at all rational.

Belief does not need proof no. I never said that it did need it. I'm saying that you can believe that something exists and that thing actually be backed up with evidence or proof! Not all belief is without evidence! Faith is belief without evidence.

EvF

[fr0d0]

You've still all to provide a single proof that belief can require evidence. I thought the transvestite site link was very well written and clear about it.

That God cannot require evidence is more than my personal opinion. Please fine me one successful argument against this. What you're quoting is superstition (sorry to be disrespectful to your Mum E), and that never ever passed as serious faith, ever. No, anyone serious about their faith knows very well that there can be no proof. The bible is the claimed guide of Christians and it shows conclusively that there can be no proof.

You can have your own idea of what religion is and require of that belief system proof. What I'm saying is that this is precisely not Christianity.

Yes Evie I'm contracting that statement in defense against Adrian's point. Now things have calmed down a bit and I'm allowed to speak a bit more freely. Adrian's statement is incorrect. The rational don't only use evidence. It remains a completely illogical word pairing. Evidence for belief vs belief without evidence. Unless you're with E and making up your own definition of religion. One in which you can amazingly have proof of God. (show me that proof BTW ))

[Edwardo Piet]

I just mean it's irrational to believe in God without evidence in the same sense it is irrational to believe in the FSM without evidence, etc, etc, etc.

Normally belief without evidence if irrational...faith is irrational. So either you have to explain why God is a special case or you have to admit to just cherry-picking out of your own personal preference. Which is subjective so it cannot objectively address the matter at hand. To believe in God without any valid reason to believe he exists is irrational. So such cherry-picking is irrational, cos as I said it is subjective, it doesn't address the matter at hand...

...and also it's just giving "God" special treatment!!

EvF

[fr0d0]

Evidence has nothing at all to do with it Evie, except in this special little religion of yours. Of course there are very many valid reasons to believe; the point being the result of belief rather than the unanswerable question of existence.

The special pleading nonsense remains separate from belief systems. It's a scientific question. Science which requires evidence and does not address theology.

[Edwardo Piet]

"Is there or isn't there a God?" is the question. You either believe there is or you don't. If we indeed, agree that God can not have evidence. That doesn't make it at all rational to believe in God without evidence, IOW "On Faith". That doesn't make "Faith" at all rational.

How can you have a valid reason to believe in God that actually address whether he exists or not and it not be evidence? If you have an at all valid reason to believe he does actually exist then that would count as evidence!!.

EvF

[fr0d0]

No, you can't demand that the rational needs evidence. Rational can be purely thought.

Is there a God is a question for everyone, believer and non believer. Both of us have exactly the same evidence to go on. You think that stating that there is no evidence is somehow the tiniest bit important. It isn't. Belief in God relies on there being no evidence. I fail to see how you can't grasp this. I've provided proofs of my reasoning and you've provided none. Cough up!

[Kyuuketsuki]

You've still all to provide a single proof that belief can require evidence.

I believe that evolution explains the origin of life on this planet, that belief is supported by validatable evidence (that supporting the theory of evolution). You believe there is a god and that belief is supported by evidence (the evidence that you can see a god I suppose) but no one else can confirm that evidence therefore it is non-validatable.

So belief CAN (but does not necessarily have to) have supporting evidence.

Kyu