Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 3, 2011 at 6:51 am)tackattack Wrote: Welcome... Truth and religious truth as I practice it are very much the same as the average atheist, I feel. Blind faith = irrational , Faith =/= irrational.
What is the difference between blind faith and faith, as in how do you define faith?
Quote: Faith does not deny what is evident.
right, it just piles a whole lot of unjustified bollocks on top.
Quote: Where there can be no evidence it gives hope and surety.
In other words Faith = Comfort > Reason.
Quote:Hey Void... that's a pretty big statement, you gonna qualify that?
Yep, with: "for which we are in any way justified in having belief in".
@DvF Then you can qualify your positive assertion as well. I was speaking more to the your belief is right portion though.
(March 3, 2011 at 7:54 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(March 3, 2011 at 6:51 am)tackattack Wrote: Welcome... Truth and religious truth as I practice it are very much the same as the average atheist, I feel. Blind faith = irrational , Faith =/= irrational .
Please DON'T EVEN THINK that you can speak for atheists tacky
(March 3, 2011 at 6:51 am)tackattack Wrote: Faith does not deny what is evident.
FAITH denys evidence ...really tacky! Do you still believe in Santa Claus??
(March 3, 2011 at 6:51 am)tackattack Wrote: Where there can be no evidence it gives hope and surety.
So what are you saying tacky?... You can NOT live without guarantees?
(March 3, 2011 at 6:51 am)tackattack Wrote: Where it is irrational or not indicative of experience it is Blind.
So now you are saying that your "Faith" is blind??
(March 3, 2011 at 6:51 am)tackattack Wrote: Just my thoughts on the matter, not that they were solicited. You'll fit in well here, glad you're enjoying your new found freedom of expression!
No but thanks for the preaching session tacky
1- I don't presume to speak for atheists. However from my conversations with many atheists I've had, our versions of what's real and not are very symetrical. I don't presume to speak for Christians either, just myself.
2- Faith does not deny evidence, faith is without evidence. To deny evidence is belief perseverance which is an extreme form of confimation bias. Rational people don't deny evience presented.
3-There are no gaurentees, however I'll likely die someday and have to pay taxes
4- No I do not have blind faith. It is neither irrational, delusional and is indicative based on personal experience. "blind" is an adjective added to faith to describe a type of faith that practices belief perseverance.
(March 3, 2011 at 8:06 am)theVOID Wrote:
(March 3, 2011 at 6:51 am)tackattack Wrote: Welcome... Truth and religious truth as I practice it are very much the same as the average atheist, I feel. Blind faith = irrational , Faith =/= irrational.
What is the difference between blind faith and faith, as in how do you define faith?
Quote: Faith does not deny what is evident.
right, it just piles a whole lot of unjustified bollocks on top.
Quote: Where there can be no evidence it gives hope and surety.
In other words Faith = Comfort > Reason.
Quote:Hey Void... that's a pretty big statement, you gonna qualify that?
Yep, with: "for which we are in any way justified in having belief in".
1- Despite DvF's cries of tautology, I've defined it clearly elsewhere as has Ryft and I think I encapsulated it above for you.
2-Depends on your standards of justification, and what you're justifying.
3-comfort and security don't ever trump reason in my book.
4-if your we becasme an I, it would be a more defensible position, because my Faith is justified.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
March 3, 2011 at 8:55 am (This post was last modified: March 3, 2011 at 8:56 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Tacky Wrote:@DvF Then you can qualify your positive assertion as well.
DvF from his latest thread Wrote:I can't prove it I can only offer an argument as to why God(s) is improbable: Because he is complex, lacking in evidence and is far enough from our experience for us to consider him improbable without such evidence.
@KN- please specifically point it out to enlighten me, as I'm always endeavoring to be intellectually honest.
@DvF- Fair enough assessment.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
You can't know something if you are uncertain. Certainty requires faith. Faith is often given because something has been presented with enough evidence/proof for the person to believe it.
If one believes something, but is not certain... then they don't know it, even though they think it quite possible. Certainty is then the amount of faith one requires in the truth of a thing before they can know it. Ultimately: certainty of a thing is knowledge of a thing. I am certain that I am sitting in my chair in front of my computer stressing out about fucking up my computer... I know all of this. I am uncertain which stars are where in relation to the earth... i do not know this.
March 3, 2011 at 4:14 pm (This post was last modified: March 3, 2011 at 4:14 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
If I am aware of the correct answer to the question, how does that not mean that I know the correct answer to the question, regardless of how certain I am about it?
March 3, 2011 at 4:25 pm (This post was last modified: March 3, 2011 at 4:26 pm by Violet.)
(March 3, 2011 at 4:14 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: If I am aware of the correct answer to the question, how does that not mean that I know the correct answer to the question, regardless of how certain I am about it?
I am aware that there is something behind me. I am uncertain what it is. Although i do not know what is behind me, i am certain that something is behind me, and thus know it.
March 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm (This post was last modified: March 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
Doesn't make sense at all to me. When someone says "I am aware of that" they mean "I know that". If you are truly aware that something is behind you, you know that something is behind you, even if you are uncertain.
(March 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: Doesn't make sense at all to me. When someone says "I am aware of that" they mean "I know that". If you are truly aware that something is behind you, you know that something is behind you, even if you are uncertain.
You do not know what the thing behind you is, all you know is that there is something behind you, and that is because of your certainty towards a thing that you are aware of... not because of your awareness itself.
You are using 'aware' to mean 'know' in this case. They are not equatable terms, no matter how many colloquiums occur with them.
When I say that I fucked my computer up: I don't mean that I copulated all over it.
