Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Faith in Values? Bah! Fear and only fear.

YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 7:58:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I guess this should go in the philosophy section; but I don't really know. It could equally go in the society, personal or politics section. I'll leave it here because the recent brigade of trolls that have either returned to or joined as of late seem not to frequently post here. I guess that's subject to change, but I'm banking on history repeating itself. Anyway...

Among the threads that I've seen, present, on the site (especially but not exclusively regarding homosexuality), there are a few things that stick out to me. The first is that whenever a person seems to be expressing an opinion about homosexuality, the person in question tends to be a Gen-Xer or older. There are a few exceptions, but the gen-Yers, and especially millennials -or those born after that- tend to be less interested in condemning homosexuality as they are in attempting to reason with those who, are, or at least appear, to be homophobes. I say homophobes purposefully because that leads me to the second trend that I've noticed: there is a distinct sense of urgency behind the homophobes message, presumably compelled by fear. More on the reasoning bit later...

But the question is, fear of what? Fear of some illusory, abstract change that will come from an equally abstract, philosophical shift in what is -they claim- invariably "essential" about marriage? I've debated before that there are no compelling arguments against gay marriage, and to me, there are none. But that then begs the question: why are those same bad arguments (albeit, bad, because I say they are bad) compelling to others? What about them resonates with those who fear homosexuality? There are, I think, a few answers to that -the first, and most imminent of which returns to the aspect of fear. If I am afraid of something, for whatever reason, it makes sense that arguments against that thing I fear of almost any quality would resonate with me because the argument are against that thing which causes me fear. So, YYW states the obvious.

The reason for that fear, though, returns to the previous point as well -and it's the third trend/theme that is unmissable: the age/generational gap and the extent to which that correlates to exposure. Older people grew up, people like my parents, grandparents, etc. in an era where homosexuality was relegated to the fringes -or worse- of society. Gay hookups took place at truck stops, public parks under the dark of night and in back-alley bars away from the general public -equally because gay men and women wanted to be left alone, and equally because society wanted nothing to do with them. Homosexuality was stigmatized, regarded as something inferior, damned as a form of mental illness, etc. -the same kinds of things that homophobes (and apparently the totality of the Russian Duma) shout present threats to society. Cutting queers off from the rest of civilization, or pushing them to the fringes, was a defensive act -and it is from a culture that acts defensively that shape the values behind the generational division on the issue of homosexuality -and highlights our third trend: values.

Values come to have significance when people hold them to be true, and the limits of what a culture deems acceptable is defined by those values -but values are fungible concepts. What one generation's culture holds sacred can be reviled by the consensus of those which will take the previous generation's place, and so on. And yet that process of cultural transition is invariably something that necessitates a considerable degree of alienation when the incumbent generation ushers out what they regard as the "backwardness" of those before. The cause of that backwardness, or rather, the cause of previous generations being regarded by subsequent generations as backward stems from the subsequent generation's recognition of the previous generation's fear -which they see as overtly irrational -which is what brings me to the fourth trend: younger people's attempt to reason with those who are older, to win them to their way of thinking.

Whenever I see some old, angry, presumably white dude posting on and on about how horrible the queers of the world are, I very rarely see a post which reads "you stupid old bastard!" to follow. I think that the "you stupid old bastard!" reaction is appropriate, perhaps even justified, but even if that's what those who reply to the homophobic ramblings I see on here are thinking (as I suspect they are), their efforts are allocated to reasoning with those who are at least appearing to make arguments denouncing homosexuality. That reaction alone tells me what the reacting generation values: reason over ungrounded moral judgement; logic and science over prejudice and bigotry; etc. but the reason that logic and reason are appearing to triumph is because younger people (say, 30 or less) have the confidence to at a minimum tolerate homosexuality, because they have seen it. They do not fear it because, gay or straight, they know and understand it -unlike those who were born and raised in what, to millennials, is nothing less than the dark ages of mankind.

But reason is insufficient to overcome a fear made hard and cold by a lifetime of indoctrination. Contrarily, trying to resolve the intellectual disputes about the imaginary harm that pseudoscientists asserted that homosexuality presented/threatened to society appears to only strengthen the resolve of those who denounce homosexuality. They call it a "war" on "their" culture -but only when they haven't a single rational argument left to make (which, amusingly enough, is the status quo from before they even post). So, they have faith in what they call "values" -and make the argument about christian morality, about the abstraction of the "social fabric," etc. that at least appears to have roots in something other than fear -despite the fact that fear, and only fear, is the real root of aversion to and intolerance of homosexuality (or any other kind of outsider/minority/etc.). Recall that younger people (those under 30) do not fear, because they know the reality of the thing they discuss.

And that, really, is the tragedy of it: a generation of people, lost in the delusion of their fear, that is, the fear they were taught, they were made to believe, is the manufactured truth which they call "values" -because there is nothing left for them to say. Such is life, I guess.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:05:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And, for the record, I don't want to hear about how I'm a horrible person for being an ageist (because age is only the corollary to the cultural differences I'm talking about), or for being overly critical, cynical, judgmental, etc. I'm aware of how pretentious this comes across as, and I make no apology for it.

I mean, the implication is that I'm suggesting that it will be a good thing for society when the old die off so that society can finally move forward. Recognize that I'm not the first to have said it, and I won't be the last. I'm sure one day I'll be in the same predicament, but today, I'm not. Today, I'm writing a condescending post that is nothing less than a giant "fvck you!" to my parent's generation -which makes me sort of an anomaly, in a sense, because it isn't an actual middle finger, so much as it is a coy acknowledgement that the culture war is already won, and that I stand with the victors.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:07:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The irony in all of this, of course, is that the harder the old fogies fight, the more sufficiently they damn their cause.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:24:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:20:43 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Was marriage originally defined by man and woman exchanging vows?

It was, but that doesn't mean that that's how it ought to be. There are all kinds of interesting peculiarities surrounding marriage, though. It was once considered normal for a 35 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl. Now, we call that pedophilia. The British once considered it the status quo among the royal families.
Tsar of DDO
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:33:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:24:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:20:43 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Was marriage originally defined by man and woman exchanging vows?

It was, but that doesn't mean that that's how it ought to be. There are all kinds of interesting peculiarities surrounding marriage, though. It was once considered normal for a 35 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl. Now, we call that pedophilia. The British once considered it the status quo among the royal families.

Those things are irrelevant to what it means to be married. People were considered mature/old at hella young centuries ago and that's only normal because our life spans were way shorter. Raising children was also much different back in antiquity, as young boys and girls were raised and expected to be mature at a MUCH younger age than during contemporary times.

The point is, it matters only if the two are of opposite sexes. Liberalization of society has demanded a lot of change, but I don't think that it's fair to change definitions just so that people can feel good about themselves. I'm all for for the gays and their rights and all, but at least call it something else than marriage.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:37:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:33:37 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:24:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:20:43 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Was marriage originally defined by man and woman exchanging vows?

It was, but that doesn't mean that that's how it ought to be. There are all kinds of interesting peculiarities surrounding marriage, though. It was once considered normal for a 35 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl. Now, we call that pedophilia. The British once considered it the status quo among the royal families.

Those things are irrelevant to what it means to be married.

Says... you.

People were considered mature/old at hella young centuries ago and that's only normal because our life spans were way shorter.

Indeed. That changing standards are ok is kind of the point I'm making here.

Raising children was also much different back in antiquity, as young boys and girls were raised and expected to be mature at a MUCH younger age than during contemporary times.

Not relevant. We're talking about marriage, you're talking about maturity levels in children.

The point is, it matters only if the two are of opposite sexes. Liberalization of society has demanded a lot of change, but I don't think that it's fair to change definitions just so that people can feel good about themselves.

Or, upholding their old, antiquated "values" so that old, antiquated people can feel good about themselves.

I'm all for for the gays and their rights and all, but at least call it something else than marriage.

I'm all for the old fogies and their self esteem, but at least have the decency to keep the bullsh!t to yourself.
Tsar of DDO
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:45:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:37:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:33:37 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:24:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:20:43 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Was marriage originally defined by man and woman exchanging vows?

It was, but that doesn't mean that that's how it ought to be. There are all kinds of interesting peculiarities surrounding marriage, though. It was once considered normal for a 35 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl. Now, we call that pedophilia. The British once considered it the status quo among the royal families.

Those things are irrelevant to what it means to be married.

Says... you.

People were considered mature/old at hella young centuries ago and that's only normal because our life spans were way shorter.

Indeed. That changing standards are ok is kind of the point I'm making here.

Raising children was also much different back in antiquity, as young boys and girls were raised and expected to be mature at a MUCH younger age than during contemporary times.

Not relevant. We're talking about marriage, you're talking about maturity levels in children.

The point is, it matters only if the two are of opposite sexes. Liberalization of society has demanded a lot of change, but I don't think that it's fair to change definitions just so that people can feel good about themselves.

Or, upholding their old, antiquated "values" so that old, antiquated people can feel good about themselves.

I'm all for for the gays and their rights and all, but at least call it something else than marriage.

I'm all for the old fogies and their self esteem, but at least have the decency to keep the bullsh!t to yourself.

Does a defined word have any value beyond its denotation? No, it doesn't. It has no value. It is what it is.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:48:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Besides, if people are gonna keep calling marriage between gays "gay marriage," then it's basically screaming for a new word for itself. Did you know that the lexicon of any language is always changing? I think the numbers were around 40-60. 40-60 new words are created each day in any given language (learned this in a french linguistics class - who knew this fact could come to use, ROFL).
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 10:09:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:45:15 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:37:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:33:37 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:24:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:20:43 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Was marriage originally defined by man and woman exchanging vows?

It was, but that doesn't mean that that's how it ought to be. There are all kinds of interesting peculiarities surrounding marriage, though. It was once considered normal for a 35 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl. Now, we call that pedophilia. The British once considered it the status quo among the royal families.

Those things are irrelevant to what it means to be married.

Says... you.

People were considered mature/old at hella young centuries ago and that's only normal because our life spans were way shorter.

Indeed. That changing standards are ok is kind of the point I'm making here.

Raising children was also much different back in antiquity, as young boys and girls were raised and expected to be mature at a MUCH younger age than during contemporary times.

Not relevant. We're talking about marriage, you're talking about maturity levels in children.

The point is, it matters only if the two are of opposite sexes. Liberalization of society has demanded a lot of change, but I don't think that it's fair to change definitions just so that people can feel good about themselves.

Or, upholding their old, antiquated "values" so that old, antiquated people can feel good about themselves.

I'm all for for the gays and their rights and all, but at least call it something else than marriage.

I'm all for the old fogies and their self esteem, but at least have the decency to keep the bullsh!t to yourself.

Does a defined word have any value beyond its denotation? No, it doesn't. It has no value. It is what it is.

I'm sure there was something profound you meant by hat, but because I'm quite stupid (and tired) you're going to have to spell it out for me because my tiny brain is incapable of making those connections.
Tsar of DDO
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 10:43:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 10:09:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:45:15 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:37:16 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:33:37 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:24:46 PM, YYW wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:20:43 PM, ben2974 wrote:
Was marriage originally defined by man and woman exchanging vows?

It was, but that doesn't mean that that's how it ought to be. There are all kinds of interesting peculiarities surrounding marriage, though. It was once considered normal for a 35 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl. Now, we call that pedophilia. The British once considered it the status quo among the royal families.

Those things are irrelevant to what it means to be married.

Says... you.

People were considered mature/old at hella young centuries ago and that's only normal because our life spans were way shorter.

Indeed. That changing standards are ok is kind of the point I'm making here.

Raising children was also much different back in antiquity, as young boys and girls were raised and expected to be mature at a MUCH younger age than during contemporary times.

Not relevant. We're talking about marriage, you're talking about maturity levels in children.

The point is, it matters only if the two are of opposite sexes. Liberalization of society has demanded a lot of change, but I don't think that it's fair to change definitions just so that people can feel good about themselves.

Or, upholding their old, antiquated "values" so that old, antiquated people can feel good about themselves.

I'm all for for the gays and their rights and all, but at least call it something else than marriage.

I'm all for the old fogies and their self esteem, but at least have the decency to keep the bullsh!t to yourself.

Does a defined word have any value beyond its denotation? No, it doesn't. It has no value. It is what it is.

I'm sure there was something profound you meant by hat, but because I'm quite stupid (and tired) you're going to have to spell it out for me because my tiny brain is incapable of making those connections.

What I said was as straightforward as can be. If you're going to argue against it, the only thing you can bring up is the connotation behind the word marriage. But that would go against your philosophy because apparently you're hell bent on decrying the meanings of values, which is exactly what connotations are based from. So really you can't even argue over this.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 10:51:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The pro-gay marriage side is just as stubborn and deserving of criticism, in my opinion. 'Faith in values' is really the problem here; if you need to have 'faith' in your values rather than 'confidence' in them, that means you have the wrong values. The progressive mindset sees itself as the more open minded, but really is ignoring the bigger picture behind it's assertions. A progressive says that gays should be allowed to get legally married because straight people can, but ignores the overall morality of 'legal marriage' as an institution, fundamentally: I'm yet to hear a proper explanation for why government have anything to do with love.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 12:00:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 10:51:20 PM, sdavio wrote:
The pro-gay marriage side is just as stubborn and deserving of criticism, in my opinion. 'Faith in values' is really the problem here; if you need to have 'faith' in your values rather than 'confidence' in them, that means you have the wrong values. The progressive mindset sees itself as the more open minded, but really is ignoring the bigger picture behind it's assertions. A progressive says that gays should be allowed to get legally married because straight people can, but ignores the overall morality of 'legal marriage' as an institution, fundamentally: I'm yet to hear a proper explanation for why government have anything to do with love.

So are you saying that gays (or progressives) have no confidence in their values?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 1:51:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 12:00:23 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/21/2013 10:51:20 PM, sdavio wrote:
The pro-gay marriage side is just as stubborn and deserving of criticism, in my opinion. 'Faith in values' is really the problem here; if you need to have 'faith' in your values rather than 'confidence' in them, that means you have the wrong values. The progressive mindset sees itself as the more open minded, but really is ignoring the bigger picture behind it's assertions. A progressive says that gays should be allowed to get legally married because straight people can, but ignores the overall morality of 'legal marriage' as an institution, fundamentally: I'm yet to hear a proper explanation for why government have anything to do with love.


So are you saying that gays (or progressives) have no confidence in their values?

I was referencing the title of the thread; I think progressives have the wrong values, so at some level must have 'faith' in the sense that they believe something despite subconsciously knowing that it is irrational. Confidence is separable from faith in that confidence is grounded in reason. I wouldn't include gays, since I don't think all gays are progressives.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 10:43:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 1:51:58 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/22/2013 12:00:23 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/21/2013 10:51:20 PM, sdavio wrote:
The pro-gay marriage side is just as stubborn and deserving of criticism, in my opinion. 'Faith in values' is really the problem here; if you need to have 'faith' in your values rather than 'confidence' in them, that means you have the wrong values. The progressive mindset sees itself as the more open minded, but really is ignoring the bigger picture behind it's assertions. A progressive says that gays should be allowed to get legally married because straight people can, but ignores the overall morality of 'legal marriage' as an institution, fundamentally: I'm yet to hear a proper explanation for why government have anything to do with love.


So are you saying that gays (or progressives) have no confidence in their values?

I was referencing the title of the thread; I think progressives have the wrong values, so at some level must have 'faith' in the sense that they believe something despite subconsciously knowing that it is irrational. Confidence is separable from faith in that confidence is grounded in reason. I wouldn't include gays, since I don't think all gays are progressives.

Don't people also have reason to believe in faith? I hear it like this all the time...
I'm definitely not saying that confidence is less meaningful than faith. In fact I think the opposite.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 11:01:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 10:43:28 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 1:51:58 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/22/2013 12:00:23 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/21/2013 10:51:20 PM, sdavio wrote:
The pro-gay marriage side is just as stubborn and deserving of criticism, in my opinion. 'Faith in values' is really the problem here; if you need to have 'faith' in your values rather than 'confidence' in them, that means you have the wrong values. The progressive mindset sees itself as the more open minded, but really is ignoring the bigger picture behind it's assertions. A progressive says that gays should be allowed to get legally married because straight people can, but ignores the overall morality of 'legal marriage' as an institution, fundamentally: I'm yet to hear a proper explanation for why government have anything to do with love.


So are you saying that gays (or progressives) have no confidence in their values?

I was referencing the title of the thread; I think progressives have the wrong values, so at some level must have 'faith' in the sense that they believe something despite subconsciously knowing that it is irrational. Confidence is separable from faith in that confidence is grounded in reason. I wouldn't include gays, since I don't think all gays are progressives.

Don't people also have reason to believe in faith? I hear it like this all the time...
I'm definitely not saying that confidence is less meaningful than faith. In fact I think the opposite.

In my opinion faith is a belief in an abstract with no definition, or belief despite, or regardless of, evidence, and so should be avoided. I wouldn't just say faith less 'less meaningful,' in fact, I'd say it's meaningless. It is just 'belief' or 'confidence' but without basis for such. If you had a valid reason to believe in something, it stops being 'faith' and becomes a belief like any other. I don't need to have faith that gravity exists.. of course I can't be 100% sure of anything, but it's the most likely theory I know of, and I'm open to questioning it.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 4:00:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 11:01:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/22/2013 10:43:28 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 1:51:58 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/22/2013 12:00:23 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/21/2013 10:51:20 PM, sdavio wrote:
The pro-gay marriage side is just as stubborn and deserving of criticism, in my opinion. 'Faith in values' is really the problem here; if you need to have 'faith' in your values rather than 'confidence' in them, that means you have the wrong values. The progressive mindset sees itself as the more open minded, but really is ignoring the bigger picture behind it's assertions. A progressive says that gays should be allowed to get legally married because straight people can, but ignores the overall morality of 'legal marriage' as an institution, fundamentally: I'm yet to hear a proper explanation for why government have anything to do with love.


So are you saying that gays (or progressives) have no confidence in their values?

I was referencing the title of the thread; I think progressives have the wrong values, so at some level must have 'faith' in the sense that they believe something despite subconsciously knowing that it is irrational. Confidence is separable from faith in that confidence is grounded in reason. I wouldn't include gays, since I don't think all gays are progressives.

Don't people also have reason to believe in faith? I hear it like this all the time...
I'm definitely not saying that confidence is less meaningful than faith. In fact I think the opposite.

In my opinion faith is a belief in an abstract with no definition, or belief despite, or regardless of, evidence, and so should be avoided. I wouldn't just say faith less 'less meaningful,' in fact, I'd say it's meaningless. It is just 'belief' or 'confidence' but without basis for such. If you had a valid reason to believe in something, it stops being 'faith' and becomes a belief like any other. I don't need to have faith that gravity exists.. of course I can't be 100% sure of anything, but it's the most likely theory I know of, and I'm open to questioning it.

I'm confused because doesn't belief work like, or with, faith? If you believe in something (it doesn't have to be related to the supernatural) then doesn't that mean you have enough faith to do so?

some1 could say: I belief that x can do this because I have faith in x.

????????????
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 5:48:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/22/2013 4:00:18 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 11:01:37 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/22/2013 10:43:28 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/22/2013 1:51:58 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/22/2013 12:00:23 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 8/21/2013 10:51:20 PM, sdavio wrote:
The pro-gay marriage side is just as stubborn and deserving of criticism, in my opinion. 'Faith in values' is really the problem here; if you need to have 'faith' in your values rather than 'confidence' in them, that means you have the wrong values. The progressive mindset sees itself as the more open minded, but really is ignoring the bigger picture behind it's assertions. A progressive says that gays should be allowed to get legally married because straight people can, but ignores the overall morality of 'legal marriage' as an institution, fundamentally: I'm yet to hear a proper explanation for why government have anything to do with love.


So are you saying that gays (or progressives) have no confidence in their values?

I was referencing the title of the thread; I think progressives have the wrong values, so at some level must have 'faith' in the sense that they believe something despite subconsciously knowing that it is irrational. Confidence is separable from faith in that confidence is grounded in reason. I wouldn't include gays, since I don't think all gays are progressives.

Don't people also have reason to believe in faith? I hear it like this all the time...
I'm definitely not saying that confidence is less meaningful than faith. In fact I think the opposite.

In my opinion faith is a belief in an abstract with no definition, or belief despite, or regardless of, evidence, and so should be avoided. I wouldn't just say faith less 'less meaningful,' in fact, I'd say it's meaningless. It is just 'belief' or 'confidence' but without basis for such. If you had a valid reason to believe in something, it stops being 'faith' and becomes a belief like any other. I don't need to have faith that gravity exists.. of course I can't be 100% sure of anything, but it's the most likely theory I know of, and I'm open to questioning it.

I'm confused because doesn't belief work like, or with, faith? If you believe in something (it doesn't have to be related to the supernatural) then doesn't that mean you have enough faith to do so?

some1 could say: I belief that x can do this because I have faith in x.

????????????

Well yeah, and belief is a part of faith, but if there's faith it means some aspect of the belief is unfounded.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx