Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religion Without Faith?

rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 8:59:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So I personally am an atheist and I used to believe that religion needed to filtered out of society altogether. But as I thought about it more, I believe that just one aspect of it should be filtered out since some aspects of it such as community and morality are good. That aspect is faith. I think that faith is extremely detrimental to society because it tells one not to reason, evaluate, use logic, or question in any way. I think this is what causes atrocities such as terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holocaust, the treatment of the Untouchables in India, and other religious-related tragedies. On a smaller level it causes discrimination of LGBT people, people making political decisions based on religion rather than what is better for the nation, and bigotry and such. Still some say that without faith, religion crumbles for it has not much other basis for belief. Do you think that religion can exist without faith?
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:07:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:59:19 PM, rogue wrote:
So I personally am an atheist and I used to believe that religion needed to filtered out of society altogether. But as I thought about it more, I believe that just one aspect of it should be filtered out since some aspects of it such as community and morality are good. That aspect is faith. I think that faith is extremely detrimental to society because it tells one not to reason, evaluate, use logic, or question in any way. I think this is what causes atrocities such as terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holocaust, the treatment of the Untouchables in India, and other religious-related tragedies. On a smaller level it causes discrimination of LGBT people, people making political decisions based on religion rather than what is better for the nation, and bigotry and such. Still some say that without faith, religion crumbles for it has not much other basis for belief. Do you think that religion can exist without faith?

Define faith.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:11:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Faith being believing in something without rational reasons for believing it is so. The classic "just believe." Explained beautifully in the song "I Believe" from the musical The Book of Mormon.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:15:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I do not know that any religion holds to a "just believe" definition of faith.

Religious Faith is better defined through an analogy:
It is more like I have faith that my mother will not shoot me tonight. I cannot prove she will not shoot me but I am absolutely certain she will not.

It is a belief on all of my cumulative experience with God.

Additionally,
I fail to see how "just believe" people are more destructive than stalin and mao.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:26:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:15:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I do not know that any religion holds to a "just believe" definition of faith.

Religious Faith is better defined through an analogy:
It is more like I have faith that my mother will not shoot me tonight. I cannot prove she will not shoot me but I am absolutely certain she will not.

It is a belief on all of my cumulative experience with God.

You truly believe that all your knowledge leads to the existence of YOUR god existing?


Additionally,
I fail to see how "just believe" people are more destructive than stalin and mao.

Who said they were? I am not saying they are worse than any other monstrosity but anyone who causes a lot of pain needs to be changed in my opinion.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:28:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:59:19 PM, rogue wrote:
So I personally am an atheist and I used to believe that religion needed to filtered out of society altogether. But as I thought about it more, I believe that just one aspect of it should be filtered out since some aspects of it such as community and morality are good. That aspect is faith. I think that faith is extremely detrimental to society because it tells one not to reason, evaluate, use logic, or question in any way. I think this is what causes atrocities such as terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holocaust, the treatment of the Untouchables in India, and other religious-related tragedies. On a smaller level it causes discrimination of LGBT people, people making political decisions based on religion rather than what is better for the nation, and bigotry and such. Still some say that without faith, religion crumbles for it has not much other basis for belief. Do you think that religion can exist without faith?

You're completely right
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:33:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:26:34 PM, rogue wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:15:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I do not know that any religion holds to a "just believe" definition of faith.

Religious Faith is better defined through an analogy:
It is more like I have faith that my mother will not shoot me tonight. I cannot prove she will not shoot me but I am absolutely certain she will not.

It is a belief on all of my cumulative experience with God.

You truly believe that all your knowledge leads to the existence of YOUR god existing?

Does the fact that he claims to have a relationship with one particular God somehow immediately discredit him? Could you please lay out the logic of that for me? Is this just a probability thing? Like there are X possible gods, so, statistically speaking you probably didn't pick the right one, or?



Additionally,
I fail to see how "just believe" people are more destructive than stalin and mao.

Who said they were? I am not saying they are worse than any other monstrosity but anyone who causes a lot of pain needs to be changed in my opinion.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2011 9:55:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:33:25 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:26:34 PM, rogue wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:15:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I do not know that any religion holds to a "just believe" definition of faith.

Religious Faith is better defined through an analogy:
It is more like I have faith that my mother will not shoot me tonight. I cannot prove she will not shoot me but I am absolutely certain she will not.

It is a belief on all of my cumulative experience with God.

You truly believe that all your knowledge leads to the existence of YOUR god existing?

Does the fact that he claims to have a relationship with one particular God somehow immediately discredit him? Could you please lay out the logic of that for me? Is this just a probability thing? Like there are X possible gods, so, statistically speaking you probably didn't pick the right one, or?

That was part of it yes.



Additionally,
I fail to see how "just believe" people are more destructive than stalin and mao.

Who said they were? I am not saying they are worse than any other monstrosity but anyone who causes a lot of pain needs to be changed in my opinion.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 1:56:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Faith is not intrinsically negative, if someone simply wants to believe in God because that is the only way they think they can be happy then so be it. It does not mean that they will take all the negative aspects of their religion, it may be that they will question everything but their belief in God.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 2:41:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:59:19 PM, rogue wrote:
So I personally am an atheist and I used to believe that religion needed to filtered out of society altogether. But as I thought about it more, I believe that just one aspect of it should be filtered out since some aspects of it such as community and morality are good. That aspect is faith. I think that faith is extremely detrimental to society because it tells one not to reason, evaluate, use logic, or question in any way. I think this is what causes atrocities such as terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holocaust, the treatment of the Untouchables in India, and other religious-related tragedies. On a smaller level it causes discrimination of LGBT people, people making political decisions based on religion rather than what is better for the nation, and bigotry and such. Still some say that without faith, religion crumbles for it has not much other basis for belief. Do you think that religion can exist without faith?

No. Not at all. Because the things that faith more often than not demands its adherents to ignore are in total opposition to it. So that leap of faith is necessary as a back-up, so even if all reason fails at defending God you can always say he's beyond rationally scrutiny, you're confident he has a plan because he's God, etc.

Think about it: the alternative to religion existing without faith would be religion advocating critical thinking and evaluating it based on rational scrutiny. Thus something that couldn't withstand rational scrutiny would be more or less discarded. The vast majority of people who hold their religion to rational scrutiny know full well that they will continue believing in their religion no matter what; they're just searching for justifications to convince themselves that their religion is somehow compatible with modern science, history, or other fields that encourage putting established beliefs to rational scrutiny, that have been used by the non-religious as "threats" to religion's authority. That's exactly the aim of apologetics - to prove that religion and modern science/history are indeed compatible, not to withhold religion to real standards where it can either be proven or disproven based on the veracity of certain claims.

I don't think it would disappear overnight because people who have been raised religious by their parents and community have taken the truth of their religion for granted their entire lives; therefore to open it to rational scrutiny, and thus the possibility of their religion being false, is psychologically dangerous and their minds will do everything to avoid it. Because accepting their religion as false would mean accepting that you've been wrong your entire life, and that so have your parents and the religious community with which you associated, etc. People don't want to do that.

So in short, "religion without faith" wouldn't die out overnight because people will do anything they can to justify their religion, but over a generation or two the strength and extent of most peoples' belief in religion would decrease. Thus, within probably, 50-100 years so would the amount of those that actually believed.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 7:41:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:59:19 PM, rogue wrote:
So I personally am an atheist and I used to believe that religion needed to filtered out of society altogether. But as I thought about it more, I believe that just one aspect of it should be filtered out since some aspects of it such as community and morality are good. That aspect is faith. I think that faith is extremely detrimental to society because it tells one not to reason, evaluate, use logic, or question in any way. I think this is what causes atrocities such as terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holocaust, the treatment of the Untouchables in India, and other religious-related tragedies. On a smaller level it causes discrimination of LGBT people, people making political decisions based on religion rather than what is better for the nation, and bigotry and such. Still some say that without faith, religion crumbles for it has not much other basis for belief. Do you think that religion can exist without faith?

Your position is interesting in that it reduces fundamentalism to its core. I use the term fundamentalist to mean all who adhere to a belief (faith) construct that does not question. There are fundamentalists of all stripes, most familiar are the evangelical Christians and Muslims, but there are also social fundamentalists who blindly adhere to the ideologies a political party or social group.

Religion, defined as a codification of beliefs held by a group of people does not exist w/o faith. eg Most Americans belong to the religion of "Americanism". This religion has a set of doctrine and rules which govern behavior. It has High Priests who interpret the rues and Doctrine. It has sacred texts, handed down from those who came before. There are statues of the heroes or saints of this religion, many of them in the Holy Places. There are Churches for the administration of the rules, by the lesser priests. There is a god, desired by most and needed by all....Money.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:33:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:15:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I do not know that any religion holds to a "just believe" definition of faith.

Religious Faith is better defined through an analogy:
It is more like I have faith that my mother will not shoot me tonight. I cannot prove she will not shoot me but I am absolutely certain she will not.

Are you saying that you have no evidence that your mother won't shoot you?

If you think about it, you could build a case overflowing with evidence that your mom won't kill you. Your confidence that your mom won't kill you is evidence-based; not faith-based.

It is a belief on all of my cumulative experience with God.



Additionally,
I fail to see how "just believe" people are more destructive than stalin and mao.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 5:44:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:59:19 PM, rogue wrote:
So I personally am an atheist and I used to believe that religion needed to filtered out of society altogether. But as I thought about it more, I believe that just one aspect of it should be filtered out since some aspects of it such as community and morality are good. That aspect is faith. I think that faith is extremely detrimental to society because it tells one not to reason, evaluate, use logic, or question in any way. I think this is what causes atrocities such as terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holocaust, the treatment of the Untouchables in India, and other religious-related tragedies. On a smaller level it causes discrimination of LGBT people, people making political decisions based on religion rather than what is better for the nation, and bigotry and such. Still some say that without faith, religion crumbles for it has not much other basis for belief. Do you think that religion can exist without faith?

Sure, why not. Take away their faith. Sure the religion aspect will crumble, but that is a small price to pay to solve the greatest single problem of society.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:13:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 1:56:31 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Faith is not intrinsically negative, if someone simply wants to believe in God because that is the only way they think they can be happy then so be it. It does not mean that they will take all the negative aspects of their religion, it may be that they will question everything but their belief in God.

Sure I agree. But I think that that is the part of religion that allows for its atrocities. Of course not everyone is gonna be that way but I don't believe that believing in God would be the only way someone would be able to be happy. That person would be very limited in many respects and probably not be a very happy person in general.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:17:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 5:44:07 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:59:19 PM, rogue wrote:
So I personally am an atheist and I used to believe that religion needed to filtered out of society altogether. But as I thought about it more, I believe that just one aspect of it should be filtered out since some aspects of it such as community and morality are good. That aspect is faith. I think that faith is extremely detrimental to society because it tells one not to reason, evaluate, use logic, or question in any way. I think this is what causes atrocities such as terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holocaust, the treatment of the Untouchables in India, and other religious-related tragedies. On a smaller level it causes discrimination of LGBT people, people making political decisions based on religion rather than what is better for the nation, and bigotry and such. Still some say that without faith, religion crumbles for it has not much other basis for belief. Do you think that religion can exist without faith?

Sure, why not. Take away their faith. Sure the religion aspect will crumble, but that is a small price to pay to solve the greatest single problem of society.

and that is?
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:20:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 2:41:08 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 10/27/2011 8:59:19 PM, rogue wrote:
So I personally am an atheist and I used to believe that religion needed to filtered out of society altogether. But as I thought about it more, I believe that just one aspect of it should be filtered out since some aspects of it such as community and morality are good. That aspect is faith. I think that faith is extremely detrimental to society because it tells one not to reason, evaluate, use logic, or question in any way. I think this is what causes atrocities such as terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holocaust, the treatment of the Untouchables in India, and other religious-related tragedies. On a smaller level it causes discrimination of LGBT people, people making political decisions based on religion rather than what is better for the nation, and bigotry and such. Still some say that without faith, religion crumbles for it has not much other basis for belief. Do you think that religion can exist without faith?

No. Not at all. Because the things that faith more often than not demands its adherents to ignore are in total opposition to it. So that leap of faith is necessary as a back-up, so even if all reason fails at defending God you can always say he's beyond rationally scrutiny, you're confident he has a plan because he's God, etc.

Think about it: the alternative to religion existing without faith would be religion advocating critical thinking and evaluating it based on rational scrutiny. Thus something that couldn't withstand rational scrutiny would be more or less discarded. The vast majority of people who hold their religion to rational scrutiny know full well that they will continue believing in their religion no matter what; they're just searching for justifications to convince themselves that their religion is somehow compatible with modern science, history, or other fields that encourage putting established beliefs to rational scrutiny, that have been used by the non-religious as "threats" to religion's authority. That's exactly the aim of apologetics - to prove that religion and modern science/history are indeed compatible, not to withhold religion to real standards where it can either be proven or disproven based on the veracity of certain claims.

I don't think it would disappear overnight because people who have been raised religious by their parents and community have taken the truth of their religion for granted their entire lives; therefore to open it to rational scrutiny, and thus the possibility of their religion being false, is psychologically dangerous and their minds will do everything to avoid it. Because accepting their religion as false would mean accepting that you've been wrong your entire life, and that so have your parents and the religious community with which you associated, etc. People don't want to do that.

So in short, "religion without faith" wouldn't die out overnight because people will do anything they can to justify their religion, but over a generation or two the strength and extent of most peoples' belief in religion would decrease. Thus, within probably, 50-100 years so would the amount of those that actually believed.

Oh I did not mean immediately. It couldn't. But I meant if religious groups changed their stance to "do not just have faith, think and question and reason. that is what god wants", would it fundamentally not work?
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:24:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 10:03:41 PM, Raisor wrote:
Does abiding by a religion because of a religious experience count as faith?

depends on what kind of religious experience. if you just mean being in church and praying and "feeling" god I would say no. But if something happened to you that you did not expect that proved beyond a doubt to you that god was real I would say that isn't faith because somehow you believe god proved himself to you.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:30:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 9:26:34 PM, rogue wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:15:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I do not know that any religion holds to a "just believe" definition of faith.

Religious Faith is better defined through an analogy:
It is more like I have faith that my mother will not shoot me tonight. I cannot prove she will not shoot me but I am absolutely certain she will not.

It is a belief on all of my cumulative experience with God.

You truly believe that all your knowledge leads to the existence of YOUR god existing?

To be clear my countless answered prayers by God who is present but unseen, my meeting Jesus, my meeting Demons, my God always taking care of me at every moment when I was in need, his teaching of me and handling of me as a father.

His existence is certainty in my mind and I have no need "trust" in that....
We were discussing faith. Faith is a trust in his promises and his character. His existence is already established for the "faithful". Anyone that has doubts is merely lacking in most if not all experiences.



Additionally,
I fail to see how "just believe" people are more destructive than stalin and mao.

Who said they were? I am not saying they are worse than any other monstrosity but anyone who causes a lot of pain needs to be changed in my opinion.

Well you seemed to be indicating that religion was the locus of "just believe".

Do you jump on the religion and political forum often and heartily advocate the removal of communistic athiests?
I missed those posts if they were within the last couple of months.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:33:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 5:33:40 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:15:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I do not know that any religion holds to a "just believe" definition of faith.

Religious Faith is better defined through an analogy:
It is more like I have faith that my mother will not shoot me tonight. I cannot prove she will not shoot me but I am absolutely certain she will not.

Are you saying that you have no evidence that your mother won't shoot you?

If you think about it, you could build a case overflowing with evidence that your mom won't kill you. Your confidence that your mom won't kill you is evidence-based; not faith-based.

Great statement! Faith is evidence based. A "blind" faith lacks evidence.

You have a different understanding of the background of faith than a religious person does.

Faith is trusting my mother based on all the evidences of past experiences. I could not prove it is not possible she would kill me but all of my past experiences serve as evidence that indeed she will not.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:38:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 5:48:26 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
As Homer Simpson insightfully put it "Faith is what you have in things that don't exist."

Seeing that Homer is know for his brilliance--- I am a bit hesitant to correct him.

That was the definition of "blind" faith. Faith is believing in something unproven based upon past proven experiences (evidence).
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:48:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Faith is what you truly believe.

The religions of the world like to pervert it into some kind of gamble. Faith is not a gamble.

Thinking otherwise is not only counterproductive to the ways of the holy spirit, but it is flat out dangerous to society at large.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:53:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Religious "faith" is belief in something that cannot be derived from observation or reason. Beliefs that your mother won't kill you tonight or that gravity will still be operating tomorrow when you wake up are well-founded reasonable beliefs. Beliefs that gods cause the weather or anything else that a particular person cannot logically explained is a religious faith. There are many different religions with many alternative gods. Belief in one over another is generally a matter of faith.

I think the test of faith is whether a belief can be upset by counter evidence. Scientists believe in conservation of energy. Recently, evidence has come to light that new energy is being created at the edges of the expanding universe. Scientists are reluctant to abandon their belief in conservation of energy, but the evidence is capable of persuading them. Religious beliefs are not subject to counter evidence. The only question is how the evidence is wrong, not whether the belief is wrong.

With religion out of fashion in some circles, faith in political ideology has come to have the same function as traditional religion. It explains the things that are not understood. Socialism never works, but ideological adherents are unshaken. No counter evidence suffices.

I doubt that atheists, in general, have fewer unshakable beliefs than religious people. People naturally arrive at firm answers to things they cannot rationally explain.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 11:28:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:59:19 PM, rogue wrote:
So I personally am an atheist and I used to believe that religion needed to filtered out of society altogether. But as I thought about it more, I believe that just one aspect of it should be filtered out since some aspects of it such as community and morality are good. That aspect is faith. I think that faith is extremely detrimental to society because it tells one not to reason, evaluate, use logic, or question in any way. I think this is what causes atrocities such as terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holocaust, the treatment of the Untouchables in India, and other religious-related tragedies. On a smaller level it causes discrimination of LGBT people, people making political decisions based on religion rather than what is better for the nation, and bigotry and such. Still some say that without faith, religion crumbles for it has not much other basis for belief. Do you think that religion can exist without faith?

Is it faith that causes this? Not intolerance? Is religion the only reason anyone fights ever?Is the world without faith really a world you'd like to live in? What about hope? Hope is a part of religion too. Some people just hope they can see their loves one again after they die. It makes them happy. Why can't one use logic and reason to slaughter millions? Hitler did. Make no mistake he was not religious and would have gone after Christians if they weren't so many of them. What about Stalin? He had no faith. Is religion the only reason people are homophobic? Are all religious people anti-gay?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 1:56:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:38:18 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:48:26 PM, MyVoiceInYourHead wrote:
As Homer Simpson insightfully put it "Faith is what you have in things that don't exist."

Seeing that Homer is know for his brilliance--- I am a bit hesitant to correct him.

That was the definition of "blind" faith. Faith is believing in something unproven based upon past proven experiences (evidence).

If that's the definition of faith then what's the definition of hope? Or reasonable expectation?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 11:29:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:33:18 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:33:40 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:15:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I do not know that any religion holds to a "just believe" definition of faith.

Religious Faith is better defined through an analogy:
It is more like I have faith that my mother will not shoot me tonight. I cannot prove she will not shoot me but I am absolutely certain she will not.

Are you saying that you have no evidence that your mother won't shoot you?

If you think about it, you could build a case overflowing with evidence that your mom won't kill you. Your confidence that your mom won't kill you is evidence-based; not faith-based.

Great statement! Faith is evidence based. A "blind" faith lacks evidence.

You have a different understanding of the background of faith than a religious person does.

Faith is trusting my mother based on all the evidences of past experiences. I could not prove it is not possible she would kill me but all of my past experiences serve as evidence that indeed she will not.

So the difference between evidence-based thinking and faith-based thinking is that faith is an emotional commitment (you used the word "trust") to evidence.

In the light of what RoyLatham was saying, it could be the case that your mom suffers some sort of psychotic breakdown (hopefully not, of course) and exhibits homicidal tendencies. Since you are educated and have a basic understanding of the nature of psychosis, you revise your "trust" to account for the new evidence, i.e., your mother may have a psychotic episode and kill you. You are able to revise your trust position in light of new *evidence*.

The point of bringing up this remote possibility is to demonstrate that the word "faith" - as you have defined it - is an emotional commitment (trust) to evidence. That is a very minimalistic definition of faith. If this were all faith meant then why don't we just stick to words like "evidence" and "trust".

It seems like when a person is put in your position, they try to change the meaning of faith to a perfectly banal synonym of something else. In a similar discussion I had with Ore_Ele, he redefined faith to mean: every day assumptions about the world people have to make in order to survive.

I suggest we return to using the word "faith" in the religious scenes: the epistemological trick that makes it possible to believe those things for which there is no evidence.

People go to church weekly, read inspirational religious literature, congregate only with believer in order to *maintain their faith*. This is the faith we are referring to. Not assumptions or trust in mothers. The faith that you would say one *needs* to have in order to know the creator of the universe. The faith that you would say atheist lack. Faith is not a synonym of evidence or trust. If it were, it would be a completely uncontroversial topic.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
MyVoiceInYourHead
Posts: 260
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 5:44:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 11:29:45 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:33:18 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 10/28/2011 5:33:40 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 10/27/2011 9:15:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I do not know that any religion holds to a "just believe" definition of faith.

Religious Faith is better defined through an analogy:
It is more like I have faith that my mother will not shoot me tonight. I cannot prove she will not shoot me but I am absolutely certain she will not.

Are you saying that you have no evidence that your mother won't shoot you?

If you think about it, you could build a case overflowing with evidence that your mom won't kill you. Your confidence that your mom won't kill you is evidence-based; not faith-based.

Great statement! Faith is evidence based. A "blind" faith lacks evidence.

You have a different understanding of the background of faith than a religious person does.

Faith is trusting my mother based on all the evidences of past experiences. I could not prove it is not possible she would kill me but all of my past experiences serve as evidence that indeed she will not.

So the difference between evidence-based thinking and faith-based thinking is that faith is an emotional commitment (you used the word "trust") to evidence.

In the light of what RoyLatham was saying, it could be the case that your mom suffers some sort of psychotic breakdown (hopefully not, of course) and exhibits homicidal tendencies. Since you are educated and have a basic understanding of the nature of psychosis, you revise your "trust" to account for the new evidence, i.e., your mother may have a psychotic episode and kill you. You are able to revise your trust position in light of new *evidence*.

The point of bringing up this remote possibility is to demonstrate that the word "faith" - as you have defined it - is an emotional commitment (trust) to evidence. That is a very minimalistic definition of faith. If this were all faith meant then why don't we just stick to words like "evidence" and "trust".

It seems like when a person is put in your position, they try to change the meaning of faith to a perfectly banal synonym of something else. In a similar discussion I had with Ore_Ele, he redefined faith to mean: every day assumptions about the world people have to make in order to survive.

I suggest we return to using the word "faith" in the religious scenes: the epistemological trick that makes it possible to believe those things for which there is no evidence.

People go to church weekly, read inspirational religious literature, congregate only with believer in order to *maintain their faith*. This is the faith we are referring to. Not assumptions or trust in mothers. The faith that you would say one *needs* to have in order to know the creator of the universe. The faith that you would say atheist lack. Faith is not a synonym of evidence or trust. If it were, it would be a completely uncontroversial topic.

I couldn't agree with you more here. "Faith" has got so much religious baggage attached to it that generally people don't use it in conversations when they are expressing trust or reasonable expectation based on past evidence.
smartyskirt
Posts: 44
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:17:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:59:19 PM, rogue wrote:
So I personally am an atheist and I used to believe that religion needed to filtered out of society altogether. But as I thought about it more, I believe that just one aspect of it should be filtered out since some aspects of it such as community and morality are good. That aspect is faith. I think that faith is extremely detrimental to society because it tells one not to reason, evaluate, use logic, or question in any way. I think this is what causes atrocities such as terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holocaust, the treatment of the Untouchables in India, and other religious-related tragedies. On a smaller level it causes discrimination of LGBT people, people making political decisions based on religion rather than what is better for the nation, and bigotry and such. Still some say that without faith, religion crumbles for it has not much other basis for belief. Do you think that religion can exist without faith?

Only one of them.
RFH
Posts: 56
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 1:12:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/27/2011 8:59:19 PM, rogue wrote:
So I personally am an atheist and I used to believe that religion needed to filtered out of society altogether. But as I thought about it more, I believe that just one aspect of it should be filtered out since some aspects of it such as community and morality are good. That aspect is faith. I think that faith is extremely detrimental to society because it tells one not to reason, evaluate, use logic, or question in any way. I think this is what causes atrocities such as terrorists, the Westboro Baptist Church, the Holocaust, the treatment of the Untouchables in India, and other religious-related tragedies. On a smaller level it causes discrimination of LGBT people, people making political decisions based on religion rather than what is better for the nation, and bigotry and such. Still some say that without faith, religion crumbles for it has not much other basis for belief. Do you think that religion can exist without faith?

What makes you think that faith drives the sorts of people you described (Westboro Baptist Church, Nazis, etc.)? I'd say it's more likely to be hate, a lust for power, or something like that. As for faith leading to discrimination against the LGBT community, what do you mean exactly? There are many theists who make well reasoned arguments against same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, etc.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the :contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know :the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men :and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.
-Pope John Paul II