Pull up a chair

[Mudhammam]

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?

Wow.. you're kind of slow, aren't you?
Did you not ask "What is faith?" If you were merely looking for a dictionary definition, you certainly didn't need to solicit an answer here. I gave you the definition as I see it used by people, including yourself, contrary to your disingenuous assertion that it is simply "trust" or "belief." Both of those ideas regarding our perceptions of the world are flexible. It doesn't take a lot for someone's trust or belief in something to change...unless of course it is held by faith, such as your faith in God. If it was flexible and could change, it would cease to be faith. Is this hard for you?

Faith is trust in an unsubstantiated idea, often times incredibly silly or irrational, and held with an unjustified degree of certainty even though it stands contrary to evidence or has no evidence to stand on at all. Do you trust people who haven't earned your trust? If so, you're very gullible and I pity you, sincerely. By this elaborated definition I have just offered, like the original, all claims that fail to meet the basic threshold of rational thought/and or empirical verification should be treated at best cautiously and none too seriously until further reason is given. Obviously, this doesn't describe your faith in Christianity--which is more than trust or belief. As I said, irrational certainty in irrational ideas.

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.

Um. No. Unlike putting trust in yourself and the representations you formulate about the world in your mind, which are necessary assumptions everyone is forced to make, you're specifically talking about trust in something that is unknown, both epistemologically and ontologically. Please do tell us what it means to trust in Calligraphy Ferris Insects. Perhaps now you can explain the difference to yourself in trusting your girlfriend versus trusting Jesus Christ. Who is God and how do you know it is real? What justification do you have for trusting it? Not such a difficult question if you substitute "God" with actual, real people you trust... unless the relationship you have with your girlfriend lacks any sort of substance as your imaginary relationship with Jesus does.

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?

Yes. I trust that this sentence carries meaning to you (though it's quickly diminishing), based on the fact that you've responded to my past messages. Otherwise I would not be typing it.

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.

Wow that sounds so deep. But it's not. That's just a semantics game. I'm using "words" and "logic" to describe objects, their functions, and abstract thoughts. Either you understand what I mean or you don't. Saying that "red" is actually "red" is arguing in a circle too..but so what? Make up whatever word you want to describe the phenomenon that appears "red" to you. So long as other people understand, there's nothing else to "test."

Are you really this stupid? I mean, are we really having this conversation right now? Or do I simply "trust" we are based on faith? Well gee, then, that must mean anything goes!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Some of you keep making same mistaken assertions: (a) the faith is by definition irrational and/or (b) the reason site opposite faith.

Using the dictionary is fine for most purposes, but with regard to Christian faith you must account for the particular meaning faith has in the Christian religion. Faith has two parts: a set of beliefs and the willingness to act on those beliefs. The veracity of the many beliefs that constitute someone’s faith will vary according to his or her knowledge, intellect, and time spent considering particular issues. For example, I spend very little time evaluating the safety of bridges and generally believe that builders make them sturdy. As such I cross bridges with faith in their safety. Christians are said to have faith when they not only hold religious beliefs, but also willing to act upon them (I James). When someone makes Christian doctrine part of his or her belief system without first using their intellect to evaluate said doctrine, it is fair to call that an irrational choice. If a person spends time thinking about whether a doctrine is true, then their acceptance is a rational choice. His reasoning may be faulty, but he still made a reasoned choice.

The types of belief that inform faith are no different from others that people form based on their personal experiences, the opinions of experts, and acquired knowledge. I believe that Socrates was a real man, even though textual evidence for his existence is slim and comes from secondary sources. For the same reason I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, a fact independent of whether He was divine or not.

As it applies to religion, people need to take account of the difference between general and special revelation.

For general revelation, the evidence under consideration is nothing in particular; but rather everything in general. By applying reason to everyday observations, anyone can draw limited theological conclusions: that God exists, that He is the Creator, and the like. This so-called “God of Philosophers” satisfies the basic requirements of all three Abrahamic religions. And general revelation is empirical because the evidence to be interpreted is readily available to all (Romans 1:19, Psalm 19).

A special revelation points to some very particular instance when or where the divine intersects with and/or manifests itself in physical reality. Special revelation claims include things like the Lord speaking to the Hebrews from Mount Sinai (Hebrews 1:1-2), the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:18-19), angelic dictation of the Koran to Mohammed and (in my tradition) Swedenborg’s witness of spiritual events. Personal experiences with the divine like inspiration, visions, divine visitations, answered prayers and the like also fall with special revelation. By their nature the claims of special revelation are less certain than those of general revelation since the supporting evidence comes from specific and limited sources like ancient manuscripts, historical records, archaeological artifacts and personal accounts.

The only difference between religious faith and all other forms of faith is the type of evidence under consideration prior to belief formation. The means used before coming to Christian faith (beliefs + the willingness to act on them) are the same for knowledge in other areas like history, personal relations, everyday living and religion are the same, i.e. reason applied to experience.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Some of you keep making same mistaken assertions: (a) the faith is by definition irrational and/or (b) the reason site opposite faith.

---

Using the dictionary is fine for most purposes, but with regard to Christian faith you must account for the particular meaning faith has in the Christian religion. Faith has two parts: a set of beliefs and the willingness to act on those beliefs. The veracity of the many beliefs that constitute someone’s faith will vary according to his or her knowledge, intellect, and time spent considering particular issues. For example, I spend very little time evaluating the safety of bridges and generally believe that builders make them sturdy. As such I cross bridges with faith in their safety. Christians are said to have faith when they not only hold religious beliefs, but also willing to act upon them (I James). When someone makes Christian doctrine part of his or her belief system without first using their intellect to evaluate said doctrine, it is fair to call that an irrational choice. If a person spends time thinking about whether a doctrine is true, then their acceptance is a rational choice. His reasoning may be faulty, but he still made a reasoned choice.

The types of belief that inform faith are no different from others that people form based on their personal experiences, the opinions of experts, and acquired knowledge. I believe that Socrates was a real man, even though textual evidence for his existence is slim and comes from secondary sources. For the same reason I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, a fact independent of whether He was divine or not.

As it applies to religion, people need to take account of the difference between general and special revelation.

For general revelation, the evidence under consideration is nothing in particular; but rather everything in general. By applying reason to everyday observations, anyone can draw limited theological conclusions: that God exists, that He is the Creator, and the like. This so-called “God of Philosophers” satisfies the basic requirements of all three Abrahamic religions. And general revelation is empirical because the evidence to be interpreted is readily available to all (Romans 1:19, Psalm 19).

A special revelation points to some very particular instance when or where the divine intersects with and/or manifests itself in physical reality. Special revelation claims include things like the Lord speaking to the Hebrews from Mount Sinai (Hebrews 1:1-2), the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:18-19), angelic dictation of the Koran to Mohammed and (in my tradition) Swedenborg’s witness of spiritual events. Personal experiences with the divine like inspiration, visions, divine visitations, answered prayers and the like also fall with special revelation. By their nature the claims of special revelation are less certain than those of general revelation since the supporting evidence comes from specific and limited sources like ancient manuscripts, historical records, archaeological artifacts and personal accounts.

The only difference between religious faith and all other forms of faith is the type of evidence under consideration prior to belief formation. The means used before coming to Christian faith (beliefs + the willingness to act on them) are the same for knowledge in other areas like history, personal relations, everyday living and religion are the same, i.e. reason applied to experience.

---

Perhaps you don't understand the definition of irrational:

ir·ra·tion·al
iˈraSHənl/
adjective
1.
not logical or reasonable.
synonyms: unreasonable, illogical, groundless, baseless, unfounded, unjustifiable; More
antonyms: reasonable, logical
not endowed with the power of reason.

fāTH/
noun
noun: faith
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine

What you stated above, in the long-winded rambling style characteristic of your posts, is irrational faith.

[Mudhammam]

Some of you keep making same mistaken assertions: (a) the faith is by definition irrational and/or (b) the reason site opposite faith.

Using the dictionary is fine for most purposes, but with regard to Christian faith you must account for the particular meaning faith has in the Christian religion.

Incorrect. My definition applies to all claims that lack evidence or rational justification... anal-probing UFOs, underwear-snatching gnomes, sacrificial zombie-man-gods, unicorns, etc.

Faith has two parts: a set of beliefs and the willingness to act on those beliefs. The veracity of the many beliefs that constitute someone’s faith will vary according to his or her knowledge, intellect, and time spent considering particular issues. For example, I spend very little time evaluating the safety of bridges and generally believe that builders make them sturdy. As such I cross bridges with faith in their safety.

What a croc of shit and you know it. You don't place "faith" in the bridge in any way that is comparable to "faith" in Calligraphy Ferret Insects or Jesus Christ zombie-man-god. You map out the route in your brain that you must go to travel from point A to your desired location; the bridge crossing is likely an unconscious act because you already presume it safe, unless perhaps if it's your first time crossing it. Why is this not like trust in God? Let's think about it for a whole 10 seconds, shall we? Perhaps the thought enters your brain that the bridge holds the weight of cars every day and therefore your fears, if any even existed, were largely unfounded because the likelihood of it collapsing while you were crossing over were insignificant. Therefore, any risk you may have considered is deemed as small as the effort required in trusting in the bridge's stability. This is a reasonable belief then. You're basing it on prior experiences with bridges or observing other people cross bridges. Is belief in your God worth taking the risk over denying Allah? Of course not. They're both equally fictitious because the evidence for either is non-existent... the concepts that make up Christianity itself fall apart under scrutiny. It would be like betting on Calligraphy Ferret Insects. What are those, you ask? I don't know anymore than you know what the hell it is you're talking about when you say God, or Jesus man-god, or eternal souls or any of that nonsense. What about the risks involved in rejecting superstitious beliefs? Are there any? How about in taking Christianity too seriously? We'll I'm pretty sure society went down that road--it was called the Dark Ages.

To suggest that you use the same reasoning principles in your faith in Jesus Christ is laughable and you know it. It's a misnomer.

Christians are said to have faith when they not only hold religious beliefs, but also willing to act upon them (I James). When someone makes Christian doctrine part of his or her belief system without first using their intellect to evaluate said doctrine, it is fair to call that an irrational choice. If a person spends time thinking about whether a doctrine is true, then their acceptance is a rational choice.

Wrong. Go to a mental institution and then tell me if those people, who have "spent time thinking about their beliefs," are rational. Your beliefs are on par with the worst conspiracy theories.

His reasoning may be faulty, but he still made a reasoned choice.

Ah, so his reasoned choice was irrational. But since he at least attempted to make a reasoned choice it's in good standing.

The types of belief that inform faith are no different from others that people form based on their personal experiences, the opinions of experts, and acquired knowledge.

LOL. What is a Jesus expert? Are they like Big Foot experts?

I believe that Socrates was a real man, even though textual evidence for his existence is slim and comes from secondary sources. For the same reason I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, a fact independent of whether He was divine or not.

Irrelevant. It would make no difference if Socrates was fictitious, it's his ideas that people care about. Oddly, when it comes to Jesus, Christians make an exception that they don't make for any other historical person. Now it's not simply the ideas that matter, but the man's life itself! And sadly, the original Christians weren't bright enough to foresee why such details might matter, if Jesus mattered.

As it applies to religion, people need to take account of the difference between general and special revelation.

For general revelation, the evidence under consideration is nothing in particular; but rather everything in general. By applying reason to everyday observations, anyone can draw limited theological conclusions: that God exists, that He is the Creator, and the like. This so-called “God of Philosophers” satisfies the basic requirements of all three Abrahamic religions. And general revelation is empirical because the evidence to be interpreted is readily available to all (Romans 1:19, Psalm 19).

Oh yeah, nothing idiotic about that mindset. I'm going to first begin with the assumption that my belief is true, and then look for evidence to confirm it. Maybe I'll find forest spirits? Ooo that would be fun! Maybe I'll confirm to myself that we really are in a Matrix, just like the movie! Hmm, any idea why there are some 4,000 different religions in the world?

A special revelation points to some very particular instance when or where the divine intersects with and/or manifests itself in physical reality. Special revelation claims include things like the Lord speaking to the Hebrews from Mount Sinai (Hebrews 1:1-2), the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:18-19), angelic dictation of the Koran to Mohammed and (in my tradition) Swedenborg’s witness of spiritual events. Personal experiences with the divine like inspiration, visions, divine visitations, answered prayers and the like also fall with special revelation. By their nature the claims of special revelation are less certain than those of general revelation since the supporting evidence comes from specific and limited sources like ancient manuscripts, historical records, archaeological artifacts and personal accounts.

In other words, your evidence for one instance of "Special Revelation": None.

The only difference between religious faith and all other forms of faith is the type of evidence under consideration prior to belief formation.

And what type of evidence does faith require?

The means used before coming to Christian faith (beliefs + the willingness to act on them) are the same for knowledge in other areas like history, personal relations, everyday living and religion are the same, i.e. reason applied to experience.

Please, tell us your "evidence" i.e. personal experiences with Jesus and heaven and hell and spirits and ghosts and all the other childish role-playing you've acquired such a fervent taste for.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Apparently you missed the point. If you are going to talk about Christian faith then you must understand what faith means to Christians.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Apparently you missed the point. If you are going to talk about Christian faith then you must understand what faith means to Christians.

Special pleading?

[Mudhammam]

Apparently you missed the point. If you are going to talk about Christian faith then you must understand what faith means to Christians.

Apparently, growing up in a Christian home, school, and church wasn't enough insight. Christians don't even know their own beliefs I guess. That explains the 38,000 sects and denominations. I don't blame you guys though because I studied the beliefs and they make absolutely no sense.

[Bad Writer]

Apparently you missed the point. If you are going to talk about Christian faith then you must understand what faith means to Christians.

Wait...what? Are you saying we are incapable of understanding faith as you view it? You realize most of us grew up in some kind of faith-promoting religion, right?

The truth is, Chad, whether or not our learned understanding of faith fits with your own is a moot point; both understandings deal with intellectual dishonesty and special pleading.

If you wish to live in your fantasy world where meanings, words, and reality mean different things than they do to the rest of humanity, then go right ahead. Just don't expect the rest of us who accept reality for what it is to join you anytime soon.

[Mudhammam]

Apparently you missed the point. If you are going to talk about Christian faith then you must understand what faith means to Christians.

Wait...what? Are you saying we are incapable of understanding faith as you view it? You realize most of us grew up in some kind of faith-promoting religion, right?

The truth is, Chad, whether or not our learned understanding of faith fits with your own is a moot point; both understandings deal with intellectual dishonesty and special pleading.

If you wish to live in your fantasy world where meanings, words, and reality mean different things than they do to the rest of humanity, then go right ahead. Just don't expect the rest of us who accept reality for what it is to join you anytime soon.

Or sit on the sidelines and keep our mouths shut while you pervert and disable the minds of gullible children who have not yet understood how to reason critically on their own.

[Chas]

Apparently you missed the point. If you are going to talk about Christian faith then you must understand what faith means to Christians.

No, you have fooled yourself thinking there is any difference.

When you say " If a person spends time thinking about whether a doctrine is true, then their acceptance is a rational choice. His reasoning may be faulty, but he still made a reasoned choice.", you are quite wrong.

The doctrine you accepted is irrational; faulty thinking is the only thing that follows.