Total Posts:94|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Belief Problem

Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 5:25:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you Google "belief" you are presented with two definitions:

1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

Now a lot of people hate organised religion because of all the things that have and are being done in its name. Although in my mind, religion is a byproduct of something much more sinister. Something that can be described very concisely by the first definition of belief.

I have no issue with faith because it is subjective. But I think there is nothing worse than when faith is turned into fact. New perspectives on this are sincerely welcome.
To believe is to know nothing.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:09:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
People use beliefs and accept them unconditionally in order to discuss things contingent on said beliefs.
For example, one can only discuss religion if they unconditionally accept that God exists, otherwise the debate would not be able to discuss the finer elements of religion without someone being able to just refute it based on their arguments against the existence of God.

It is even clearer in science. For example, scientists cannot prove that sense experience is a correct source of verification, yet they have a belief that sense experience is a correct source of verification. This belief is not based on evidence yet it is assumed to be fact. Once they have a belief that establishes this they can then go on to discuss science in more detail.
dee-em
Posts: 6,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:37:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 6:09:20 AM, Philocat wrote:
People use beliefs and accept them unconditionally in order to discuss things contingent on said beliefs.
For example, one can only discuss religion if they unconditionally accept that God exists, otherwise the debate would not be able to discuss the finer elements of religion without someone being able to just refute it based on their arguments against the existence of God.

I don't agree with that. You can suspend disbelief for the purpose of arguing a particular position. That doesn't mean you unconditionally accept that belief (such as the existence of God).

It is even clearer in science. For example, scientists cannot prove that sense experience is a correct source of verification, yet they have a belief that sense experience is a correct source of verification. This belief is not based on evidence yet it is assumed to be fact. Once they have a belief that establishes this they can then go on to discuss science in more detail.

It's less of a belief and more of an axiom. It's grounded in experience and a long history of success, both in understanding nature and in making useful predictions.

I don't think you can compare the belief associated with religion (blind faith) with the acceptance of fundamental axioms in science.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:42:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 6:37:28 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:09:20 AM, Philocat wrote:
People use beliefs and accept them unconditionally in order to discuss things contingent on said beliefs.
For example, one can only discuss religion if they unconditionally accept that God exists, otherwise the debate would not be able to discuss the finer elements of religion without someone being able to just refute it based on their arguments against the existence of God.

I don't agree with that. You can suspend disbelief for the purpose of arguing a particular position. That doesn't mean you unconditionally accept that belief (such as the existence of God).

It is even clearer in science. For example, scientists cannot prove that sense experience is a correct source of verification, yet they have a belief that sense experience is a correct source of verification. This belief is not based on evidence yet it is assumed to be fact. Once they have a belief that establishes this they can then go on to discuss science in more detail.

It's less of a belief and more of an axiom. It's grounded in experience and a long history of success, both in understanding nature and in making useful predictions.

I don't think you can compare the belief associated with religion (blind faith) with the acceptance of fundamental axioms in science.

Perhaps, but then I would argue that many religous people take God's existence to be an axiom in the same way that scientists take the veracity of empiriscism to be one.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:48:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 6:42:55 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:37:28 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:09:20 AM, Philocat wrote:
People use beliefs and accept them unconditionally in order to discuss things contingent on said beliefs.
For example, one can only discuss religion if they unconditionally accept that God exists, otherwise the debate would not be able to discuss the finer elements of religion without someone being able to just refute it based on their arguments against the existence of God.

I don't agree with that. You can suspend disbelief for the purpose of arguing a particular position. That doesn't mean you unconditionally accept that belief (such as the existence of God).

It is even clearer in science. For example, scientists cannot prove that sense experience is a correct source of verification, yet they have a belief that sense experience is a correct source of verification. This belief is not based on evidence yet it is assumed to be fact. Once they have a belief that establishes this they can then go on to discuss science in more detail.

It's less of a belief and more of an axiom. It's grounded in experience and a long history of success, both in understanding nature and in making useful predictions.

I don't think you can compare the belief associated with religion (blind faith) with the acceptance of fundamental axioms in science.

Perhaps, but then I would argue that many religous people take God's existence to be an axiom in the same way that scientists take the veracity of empiriscism to be one.

Which is two completely contradictory ideas, one has veracity, the other doesn't by its nature.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:52:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 6:48:13 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:42:55 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:37:28 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:09:20 AM, Philocat wrote:
People use beliefs and accept them unconditionally in order to discuss things contingent on said beliefs.
For example, one can only discuss religion if they unconditionally accept that God exists, otherwise the debate would not be able to discuss the finer elements of religion without someone being able to just refute it based on their arguments against the existence of God.

I don't agree with that. You can suspend disbelief for the purpose of arguing a particular position. That doesn't mean you unconditionally accept that belief (such as the existence of God).

It is even clearer in science. For example, scientists cannot prove that sense experience is a correct source of verification, yet they have a belief that sense experience is a correct source of verification. This belief is not based on evidence yet it is assumed to be fact. Once they have a belief that establishes this they can then go on to discuss science in more detail.

It's less of a belief and more of an axiom. It's grounded in experience and a long history of success, both in understanding nature and in making useful predictions.

I don't think you can compare the belief associated with religion (blind faith) with the acceptance of fundamental axioms in science.

Perhaps, but then I would argue that many religous people take God's existence to be an axiom in the same way that scientists take the veracity of empiriscism to be one.


Which is two completely contradictory ideas, one has veracity, the other doesn't by its nature.

Could you please expand on your view? Which of the two are you referring to?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 7:48:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 6:52:03 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:48:13 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:42:55 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:37:28 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:09:20 AM, Philocat wrote:
People use beliefs and accept them unconditionally in order to discuss things contingent on said beliefs.
For example, one can only discuss religion if they unconditionally accept that God exists, otherwise the debate would not be able to discuss the finer elements of religion without someone being able to just refute it based on their arguments against the existence of God.

I don't agree with that. You can suspend disbelief for the purpose of arguing a particular position. That doesn't mean you unconditionally accept that belief (such as the existence of God).

It is even clearer in science. For example, scientists cannot prove that sense experience is a correct source of verification, yet they have a belief that sense experience is a correct source of verification. This belief is not based on evidence yet it is assumed to be fact. Once they have a belief that establishes this they can then go on to discuss science in more detail.

It's less of a belief and more of an axiom. It's grounded in experience and a long history of success, both in understanding nature and in making useful predictions.

I don't think you can compare the belief associated with religion (blind faith) with the acceptance of fundamental axioms in science.

Perhaps, but then I would argue that many religous people take God's existence to be an axiom in the same way that scientists take the veracity of empiriscism to be one.


Which is two completely contradictory ideas, one has veracity, the other doesn't by its nature.

Could you please expand on your view? Which of the two are you referring to?

Science. It has veracity. It has repeatable experimentation, and peer review based on verified and verifiable results. Religion rely solely on reinterpretation of one source to match current discoveries, can not be repeated, and is subjective to each individual on a case by case basis.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 8:03:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In most cases" belief/trust/faith is turned into something that it is really not, when it comes to religion for many reasons. The farmer plants seeds because he has expectation of a return on what was invested. No investment no faith. No expectation (hope). His faith/belief/trust could be in the modified seed, new fertilizer for reasons like it worked before or his trusted friend said this or that works for the yield necessary for a suitable return on an investment.

If you feed birds and the like where you live you will find that they and rabbits will begin to trust that you are not a threat to their well being.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:47:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 7:48:05 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:52:03 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:48:13 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:42:55 AM, Philocat wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:37:28 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:09:20 AM, Philocat wrote:
People use beliefs and accept them unconditionally in order to discuss things contingent on said beliefs.
For example, one can only discuss religion if they unconditionally accept that God exists, otherwise the debate would not be able to discuss the finer elements of religion without someone being able to just refute it based on their arguments against the existence of God.

I don't agree with that. You can suspend disbelief for the purpose of arguing a particular position. That doesn't mean you unconditionally accept that belief (such as the existence of God).

It is even clearer in science. For example, scientists cannot prove that sense experience is a correct source of verification, yet they have a belief that sense experience is a correct source of verification. This belief is not based on evidence yet it is assumed to be fact. Once they have a belief that establishes this they can then go on to discuss science in more detail.

It's less of a belief and more of an axiom. It's grounded in experience and a long history of success, both in understanding nature and in making useful predictions.

I don't think you can compare the belief associated with religion (blind faith) with the acceptance of fundamental axioms in science.

Perhaps, but then I would argue that many religous people take God's existence to be an axiom in the same way that scientists take the veracity of empiriscism to be one.


Which is two completely contradictory ideas, one has veracity, the other doesn't by its nature.

Could you please expand on your view? Which of the two are you referring to?

Science. It has veracity. It has repeatable experimentation, and peer review based on verified and verifiable results. Religion rely solely on reinterpretation of one source to match current discoveries, can not be repeated, and is subjective to each individual on a case by case basis.

I agree with FaustianJustice and dee-em. Your reasoning supports the original proposition well. Any more arguments against?
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 1:09:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 8:03:53 AM, DPMartin wrote:
In most cases" belief/trust/faith is turned into something that it is really not, when it comes to religion for many reasons. The farmer plants seeds because he has expectation of a return on what was invested. No investment no faith. No expectation (hope). His faith/belief/trust could be in the modified seed, new fertilizer for reasons like it worked before or his trusted friend said this or that works for the yield necessary for a suitable return on an investment.


If you feed birds and the like where you live you will find that they and rabbits will begin to trust that you are not a threat to their well being.

What would you make of a farmer who claims to know, as matter of fact, that he will get a return on his investment?
To believe is to know nothing.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 2:05:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 1:09:42 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 8:03:53 AM, DPMartin wrote:
In most cases" belief/trust/faith is turned into something that it is really not, when it comes to religion for many reasons. The farmer plants seeds because he has expectation of a return on what was invested. No investment no faith. No expectation (hope). His faith/belief/trust could be in the modified seed, new fertilizer for reasons like it worked before or his trusted friend said this or that works for the yield necessary for a suitable return on an investment.


If you feed birds and the like where you live you will find that they and rabbits will begin to trust that you are not a threat to their well being.

What would you make of a farmer who claims to know, as matter of fact, that he will get a return on his investment?

People don"t farm God, do they? In most examples expressed through biblical prophets, and the Lord Jesus Christ, God farms men as though men are the ground, which technically they are by the way, (dust to dust).

The example is to show faith placed in the living of everyday life, could be any human activity that requires belief in the fulfillment of what is promised or promising. Could be one"s belief in the fulfillment of a agreement that a contractor will remodeled one"s house as promised. The example isn"t the subject. Faith can be as simple as, "in God we trust, all others pay cash". Which shows were someone places their trust when transaction are involved.

So for the true Christian its fulfillment in Christ that is promised, of which Jesus showed to the faithful.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 5:38:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 2:05:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:09:42 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 8:03:53 AM, DPMartin wrote:
In most cases" belief/trust/faith is turned into something that it is really not, when it comes to religion for many reasons. The farmer plants seeds because he has expectation of a return on what was invested. No investment no faith. No expectation (hope). His faith/belief/trust could be in the modified seed, new fertilizer for reasons like it worked before or his trusted friend said this or that works for the yield necessary for a suitable return on an investment.


If you feed birds and the like where you live you will find that they and rabbits will begin to trust that you are not a threat to their well being.

What would you make of a farmer who claims to know, as matter of fact, that he will get a return on his investment?

People don"t farm God, do they? In most examples expressed through biblical prophets, and the Lord Jesus Christ, God farms men as though men are the ground, which technically they are by the way, (dust to dust).

The example is to show faith placed in the living of everyday life, could be any human activity that requires belief in the fulfillment of what is promised or promising. Could be one"s belief in the fulfillment of a agreement that a contractor will remodeled one"s house as promised. The example isn"t the subject. Faith can be as simple as, "in God we trust, all others pay cash". Which shows were someone places their trust when transaction are involved.

So for the true Christian its fulfillment in Christ that is promised, of which Jesus showed to the faithful.

You refer to the second definition of belief. I'm not trying to refute that.

For the sake of argument, please could you humour me and answer the question in my previous post?
To believe is to know nothing.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:13:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 6:09:20 AM, Philocat wrote:
People use beliefs and accept them unconditionally in order to discuss things contingent on said beliefs.
For example, one can only discuss religion if they unconditionally accept that God exists, otherwise the debate would not be able to discuss the finer elements of religion without someone being able to just refute it based on their arguments against the existence of God.

You don't have to believe in God to discuss religion at all. You just assume a "what if" position for the sake of discussion just like you would with any hypothetical situation.


It is even clearer in science. For example, scientists cannot prove that sense experience is a correct source of verification, yet they have a belief that sense experience is a correct source of verification. This belief is not based on evidence yet it is assumed to be fact. Once they have a belief that establishes this they can then go on to discuss science in more detail.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 6:48:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 5:38:29 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 2:05:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:09:42 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 8:03:53 AM, DPMartin wrote:
In most cases" belief/trust/faith is turned into something that it is really not, when it comes to religion for many reasons. The farmer plants seeds because he has expectation of a return on what was invested. No investment no faith. No expectation (hope). His faith/belief/trust could be in the modified seed, new fertilizer for reasons like it worked before or his trusted friend said this or that works for the yield necessary for a suitable return on an investment.


If you feed birds and the like where you live you will find that they and rabbits will begin to trust that you are not a threat to their well being.

What would you make of a farmer who claims to know, as matter of fact, that he will get a return on his investment?

People don"t farm God, do they? In most examples expressed through biblical prophets, and the Lord Jesus Christ, God farms men as though men are the ground, which technically they are by the way, (dust to dust).

The example is to show faith placed in the living of everyday life, could be any human activity that requires belief in the fulfillment of what is promised or promising. Could be one"s belief in the fulfillment of a agreement that a contractor will remodeled one"s house as promised. The example isn"t the subject. Faith can be as simple as, "in God we trust, all others pay cash". Which shows were someone places their trust when transaction are involved.

So for the true Christian its fulfillment in Christ that is promised, of which Jesus showed to the faithful.

You refer to the second definition of belief. I'm not trying to refute that.

For the sake of argument, please could you humour me and answer the question in my previous post?

That"s the answer you get in ref to the farmer. Faith into fact is well-placed faith.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 2:39:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 6:48:21 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/26/2014 5:38:29 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 2:05:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:09:42 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 8:03:53 AM, DPMartin wrote:
In most cases" belief/trust/faith is turned into something that it is really not, when it comes to religion for many reasons. The farmer plants seeds because he has expectation of a return on what was invested. No investment no faith. No expectation (hope). His faith/belief/trust could be in the modified seed, new fertilizer for reasons like it worked before or his trusted friend said this or that works for the yield necessary for a suitable return on an investment.


If you feed birds and the like where you live you will find that they and rabbits will begin to trust that you are not a threat to their well being.

What would you make of a farmer who claims to know, as matter of fact, that he will get a return on his investment?

People don"t farm God, do they? In most examples expressed through biblical prophets, and the Lord Jesus Christ, God farms men as though men are the ground, which technically they are by the way, (dust to dust).

The example is to show faith placed in the living of everyday life, could be any human activity that requires belief in the fulfillment of what is promised or promising. Could be one"s belief in the fulfillment of a agreement that a contractor will remodeled one"s house as promised. The example isn"t the subject. Faith can be as simple as, "in God we trust, all others pay cash". Which shows were someone places their trust when transaction are involved.

So for the true Christian its fulfillment in Christ that is promised, of which Jesus showed to the faithful.

You refer to the second definition of belief. I'm not trying to refute that.

For the sake of argument, please could you humour me and answer the question in my previous post?

That"s the answer you get in ref to the farmer. Faith into fact is well-placed faith.

And then there's a drought or some other kind of natural disaster and the crops are ruined. As often happens around the world...

There is no place for objectivity in belief. In fact I'd go so far as to say that I think such a thing is in every way impossible.
To believe is to know nothing.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 7:24:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 5:25:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
If you Google "belief" you are presented with two definitions:

1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

First of all I did indeed Google "belief" and what I got was this...

1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"belief in the value of hard work"


Now a lot of people hate organised religion because of all the things that have and are being done in its name. Although in my mind, religion is a byproduct of something much more sinister. Something that can be described very concisely by the first definition of belief.

So you view any religion through an assertion?

I have no issue with faith because it is subjective. But I think there is nothing worse than when faith is turned into fact. New perspectives on this are sincerely welcome.

Scriptural faith is not used to guess God exists, as believers we are to know God exists before faith is even an option (Hebrews 11:6). That's because faith was never intended to supplement the existence of God, but to prove His existence, what we see as wide spread faith today is not what faith is in scripture and of course that is the fault of the people. Faith is not ALL believers have, it is a single element of the Christian belief and varies from person to person.

Jesus was the ultimate example of what faith is when it pertains to God, it is an action which brings forth results and reveals a persons true beliefs, it separates the real from the fakes.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 8:27:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 7:24:36 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/26/2014 5:25:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
If you Google "belief" you are presented with two definitions:

1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

First of all I did indeed Google "belief" and what I got was this...

1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"belief in the value of hard work"


Now a lot of people hate organised religion because of all the things that have and are being done in its name. Although in my mind, religion is a byproduct of something much more sinister. Something that can be described very concisely by the first definition of belief.

So you view any religion through an assertion?

No, an opinion.


I have no issue with faith because it is subjective. But I think there is nothing worse than when faith is turned into fact. New perspectives on this are sincerely welcome.

Scriptural faith is not used to guess God exists, as believers we are to know God exists before faith is even an option (Hebrews 11:6). That's because faith was never intended to supplement the existence of God, but to prove His existence, what we see as wide spread faith today is not what faith is in scripture and of course that is the fault of the people. Faith is not ALL believers have, it is a single element of the Christian belief and varies from person to person.

Jesus was the ultimate example of what faith is when it pertains to God, it is an action which brings forth results and reveals a persons true beliefs, it separates the real from the fakes.

I'm sorry but I don't accept your circular reasoning. It simply isn't valid in this day and age. I don't mean to cause offense but what we are both expressing are opinions. My aim is not to disprove particular beliefs but to show that it is impossible to falsely mutate an opinion into truth.
To believe is to know nothing.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 8:47:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 5:25:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
If you Google "belief" you are presented with two definitions:

1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

Now a lot of people hate organised religion because of all the things that have and are being done in its name. Although in my mind, religion is a byproduct of something much more sinister. Something that can be described very concisely by the first definition of belief.

I have no issue with faith because it is subjective. But I think there is nothing worse than when faith is turned into fact. New perspectives on this are sincerely welcome.

I believe you are goofy, but that is a subjective belief based on your attempt to separate belief from facts. When you move to sit in a chair, you believe the chair is going to hold you based on facts; such as the perhaps you saw somebody your size or bigger sitting in the chair before you or you can see by a glance that the chair looks strong enough to hold you.

I believe the sky is blue even though I can't see it today. I believe it is blue because I know it is blue. I really can't prove it to you, but you probably believe it anyways. You don't have to believe it. It's blue if you believe or not. I don't have to see it to know it. If the sky changed color sinse the time it was covered by clouds, the clouds would appear strange if not completely different, so I conlude my belief is accurate and sound based on the facts. I know the sky is blue. I believe it is blue because I know it is blue. I don't believe thing I do not know to be true excetpt in those things when I would say "I believe it's very cold outside today, but I really don't know" When you know, you know. When you don't know, you don't know. If you say you know but you really don't know, you are a fool. Atheists claim to know things they do not know, they believe things they cannot prove apart from the finalzation of thier death. You can believe what you know, and know what you believe.

What is sinister in the way you are trying to paint "belief" as born of something evil is your own heart. You have a hatred agasint God and it's going to take you down to Hell if you don't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

I'm saying this as nicely as I can, but by the way you seem to find "sinister" in things, you will probably just sneer at this and spit out some kind of twisted logic.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 9:04:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have no issue with faith because it is subjective. But I think there is nothing worse than when faith is turned into fact. New perspectives on this are sincerely welcome.

Ok, since you are welcoming new perspectives on this, I'll try to keep it soft and entertaining without holding back from the truth....the truth is hard to take when we think it is against us and can do us no good.

When you look at a chair, and you decide you are going to sit in that chair, you believe it is going to hold you without breaking apart and crashing with you in it's remains onto the floor. You probably perform this act of "faith turned into fact" every day. Faith is belief in action, and it can be misguided and mistaken faith. If that chair did happen to break and you found yourself in a heap with it on the floor, then you would know your faith was misguided.

You perform dozens if not hundreds of acts of fatih every day. When you act in faith, your action is the fact of your faith. Definition 1 and definition 2 in your dictionary display are inseparable. Yes, you have confidence and trust in something you have not proved untill you sit in that chair. If you believe in the filleting spaghetti monster, that is an extremly childish faith. Why do you think little children believe in Santa clause? It's because they are simple minded and trust what their parents tell them.

You are not an innocent child. You have grown enough where you are responsible for your own actions regardless of what you believe. If you believe there is no God to hold you accountable for your actions, you will act accordingly in word, deed, and/or thought.

Now for the facts you probably hate the most: We all deserve to die and burn in Hell, no matter how things may seem in this world, no matter how much we or others suffer, we are not burning in Hell. This is an undeniable fact unless God took you out of this world and you are lost forever now in Hell. I believe you are still here, so there is still hope for you to be saved from Hell. If you believe there is no Hell, that will not make Hell of no effect any more than if you believe the sky is no longer blue, it will stop being blue.

My guess is that at some point long before you got to the end of this attempt to reason with you, the door of your mind slammed shut once again rejecting God's right to rule over you every moment of your existence. Am I correct?
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 9:21:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 2:39:32 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:48:21 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/26/2014 5:38:29 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 2:05:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:09:42 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 8:03:53 AM, DPMartin wrote:
In most cases" belief/trust/faith is turned into something that it is really not, when it comes to religion for many reasons. The farmer plants seeds because he has expectation of a return on what was invested. No investment no faith. No expectation (hope). His faith/belief/trust could be in the modified seed, new fertilizer for reasons like it worked before or his trusted friend said this or that works for the yield necessary for a suitable return on an investment.


If you feed birds and the like where you live you will find that they and rabbits will begin to trust that you are not a threat to their well being.

What would you make of a farmer who claims to know, as matter of fact, that he will get a return on his investment?

People don"t farm God, do they? In most examples expressed through biblical prophets, and the Lord Jesus Christ, God farms men as though men are the ground, which technically they are by the way, (dust to dust).

The example is to show faith placed in the living of everyday life, could be any human activity that requires belief in the fulfillment of what is promised or promising. Could be one"s belief in the fulfillment of a agreement that a contractor will remodeled one"s house as promised. The example isn"t the subject. Faith can be as simple as, "in God we trust, all others pay cash". Which shows were someone places their trust when transaction are involved.

So for the true Christian its fulfillment in Christ that is promised, of which Jesus showed to the faithful.

You refer to the second definition of belief. I'm not trying to refute that.

For the sake of argument, please could you humour me and answer the question in my previous post?

That"s the answer you get in ref to the farmer. Faith into fact is well-placed faith.

And then there's a drought or some other kind of natural disaster and the crops are ruined. As often happens around the world...

There is no place for objectivity in belief. In fact I'd go so far as to say that I think such a thing is in every way impossible.

Well if that"s what you think then it must be true, because you thought it, right?

So according to you, no one should do anything because something bad could happen, correct? It is possible that the farmer will succeed, not only that, it is possible the farmer could reap more then his expectations. But how that is done, mainly comes down to what you place your faith in, and nothing is done without it. The first to do so that others may follow was based on faith. A rabbit trusts its instincts and experience to cross the opening to get to the food, that the rabbit believes is there.

You will not do anything without placing your faith with the hope of fulillment therein.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 9:38:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 8:27:32 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:24:36 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/26/2014 5:25:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
If you Google "belief" you are presented with two definitions:

1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

First of all I did indeed Google "belief" and what I got was this...

1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"belief in the value of hard work"


Now a lot of people hate organised religion because of all the things that have and are being done in its name. Although in my mind, religion is a byproduct of something much more sinister. Something that can be described very concisely by the first definition of belief.

So you view any religion through an assertion?

No, an opinion.



I have no issue with faith because it is subjective. But I think there is nothing worse than when faith is turned into fact. New perspectives on this are sincerely welcome.

Scriptural faith is not used to guess God exists, as believers we are to know God exists before faith is even an option (Hebrews 11:6). That's because faith was never intended to supplement the existence of God, but to prove His existence, what we see as wide spread faith today is not what faith is in scripture and of course that is the fault of the people. Faith is not ALL believers have, it is a single element of the Christian belief and varies from person to person.

Jesus was the ultimate example of what faith is when it pertains to God, it is an action which brings forth results and reveals a persons true beliefs, it separates the real from the fakes.

I'm sorry but I don't accept your circular reasoning. It simply isn't valid in this day and age. I don't mean to cause offense but what we are both expressing are opinions. My aim is not to disprove particular beliefs but to show that it is impossible to falsely mutate an opinion into truth.

Well then to what religion are you suggesting? When you say "religion" I assume you include Christianity, and if that is the case your opinion is a strawman. And what "opinion" am I expressing? It's not an opinion regarding Christianity, I can support my "opinion". What circular reasoning? and what is not valid in this day and age? You have to provide good reasons for your argument, show the verses in scripture that provide the groundwork for your claim to verify you know what you are talking about in any particular "religion" because faith is no longer a single definition. First you must understand what faith is in Christianity (assuming this is one of the religions you are referring) before you can start asserting things that is why I rambled about it.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 9:41:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was hoping I'd get some responses like these!

Please bare with me.
To believe is to know nothing.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 9:49:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 9:41:28 AM, Impartial wrote:
I was hoping I'd get some responses like these!

Please bare with me.

Take your time, I'm sure we will get an ear full of Atheist propaganda with the usual side of a sweeping material mind set.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 10:09:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 8:47:29 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/26/2014 5:25:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
If you Google "belief" you are presented with two definitions:

1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

Now a lot of people hate organised religion because of all the things that have and are being done in its name. Although in my mind, religion is a byproduct of something much more sinister. Something that can be described very concisely by the first definition of belief.

I have no issue with faith because it is subjective. But I think there is nothing worse than when faith is turned into fact. New perspectives on this are sincerely welcome.

I believe you are goofy, but that is a subjective belief based on your attempt to separate belief from facts. When you move to sit in a chair, you believe the chair is going to hold you based on facts; such as the perhaps you saw somebody your size or bigger sitting in the chair before you or you can see by a glance that the chair looks strong enough to hold you.

One doesn't know that a chair will hold their weight or indeed if they'll even make it to the chair to sit on it. There could be a whole host of things that stop you even reaching the chair and in the event that you do sit down, however likely that may be, someone could have taken all the screws out. One simply trusts that it will hold their weight based on past experiences.


I believe the sky is blue even though I can't see it today. I believe it is blue because I know it is blue. I really can't prove it to you, but you probably believe it anyways. You don't have to believe it. It's blue if you believe or not. I don't have to see it to know it. If the sky changed color sinse the time it was covered by clouds, the clouds would appear strange if not completely different, so I conlude my belief is accurate and sound based on the facts. I know the sky is blue. I believe it is blue because I know it is blue. I don't believe thing I do not know to be true excetpt in those things when I would say "I believe it's very cold outside today, but I really don't know" When you know, you know. When you don't know, you don't know. If you say you know but you really don't know, you are a fool. Atheists claim to know things they do not know, they believe things they cannot prove apart from the finalzation of thier death. You can believe what you know, and know what you believe.

What if someone is colour blind and the sky appears pink? What if its early in the morning or late at night when the earth's atmosphere alters the wavelength of sunlight entering your eye, making the sky appear a different colour?

I'm glad you bring up atheists, even though it's somewhat of a digression. Atheists have a lack of belief. They do not know but they think that based on their experience of the world, the existance of a God seems unlikely. It's an opinion.


What is sinister in the way you are trying to paint "belief" as born of something evil is your own heart. You have a hatred agasint God and it's going to take you down to Hell if you don't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

I don't hate something that I don't think is real. Remember, I'm not making factual claims here. Look at it this way. I'm about as scared of going to Hell as you are of Allah walking through the door and slapping you across the face. You don't know it won't happen but you've got an opinion about its likelihood.

I'm saying this as nicely as I can, but by the way you seem to find "sinister" in things, you will probably just sneer at this and spit out some kind of twisted logic.

I'm not all that interested in the religious examples really. I'm talking about belief. But if you have time and you want to look more into religion, may I refer you to youtube. Type in 'Christopher Hitchens' and/or 'Richard Dawkins.'
To believe is to know nothing.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 10:35:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Belief, fact, faith work together!, the one works with the other.
Faith is the result of belief which is to observe the facts. I may begin to have "faith" in my spouse based on the evidence of what is true, the spouse has given reason for the faith by the evidence of what is observed, belief is enforced and faith is strengthened resulting in greater faith. I now have faith that is based on evidence through belief.
In Christianity faith works the same way, it is confidence in God based on facts.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 10:36:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 9:04:02 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
I have no issue with faith because it is subjective. But I think there is nothing worse than when faith is turned into fact. New perspectives on this are sincerely welcome.



Ok, since you are welcoming new perspectives on this, I'll try to keep it soft and entertaining without holding back from the truth....the truth is hard to take when we think it is against us and can do us no good.

When you look at a chair, and you decide you are going to sit in that chair, you believe it is going to hold you without breaking apart and crashing with you in it's remains onto the floor. You probably perform this act of "faith turned into fact" every day. Faith is belief in action, and it can be misguided and mistaken faith. If that chair did happen to break and you found yourself in a heap with it on the floor, then you would know your faith was misguided.

Please refer to my previous post. Facts are not misguided. Opinions can be.


You perform dozens if not hundreds of acts of fatih every day. When you act in faith, your action is the fact of your faith. Definition 1 and definition 2 in your dictionary display are inseparable. Yes, you have confidence and trust in something you have not proved untill you sit in that chair. If you believe in the filleting spaghetti monster, that is an extremly childish faith. Why do you think little children believe in Santa clause? It's because they are simple minded and trust what their parents tell them.

The fact of your faith? That right there is what I have a problem with. This is what makes it OK (in someone's head) to blow themselves up along with a crowd of people, because they KNOW they'll get 72 virgins in Heaven if they do. This is what makes it OK for you to say that atheists eventually burn in Hell, as though you somehow KNOW this. I find it infuriating.


You are not an innocent child. You have grown enough where you are responsible for your own actions regardless of what you believe. If you believe there is no God to hold you accountable for your actions, you will act accordingly in word, deed, and/or thought.

But your book tells you it's alright to keep slaves and murder naughty children and people who work on Sundays. My lack of belief does not prompt any such action.


Now for the facts you probably hate the most: We all deserve to die and burn in Hell, no matter how things may seem in this world, no matter how much we or others suffer, we are not burning in Hell. This is an undeniable fact unless God took you out of this world and you are lost forever now in Hell. I believe you are still here, so there is still hope for you to be saved from Hell. If you believe there is no Hell, that will not make Hell of no effect any more than if you believe the sky is no longer blue, it will stop being blue.

?

My guess is that at some point long before you got to the end of this attempt to reason with you, the door of your mind slammed shut once again rejecting God's right to rule over you every moment of your existence. Am I correct?

As the one making the extraordinary claims, you have a lot of work ahead of yourself. I'm happy to debate. Can we bring it back to the discussion on belief though and not about religion and all this God and Hell stuff?
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 10:41:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 9:21:31 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/27/2014 2:39:32 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 6:48:21 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/26/2014 5:38:29 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 2:05:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 11/26/2014 1:09:42 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/26/2014 8:03:53 AM, DPMartin wrote:
In most cases" belief/trust/faith is turned into something that it is really not, when it comes to religion for many reasons. The farmer plants seeds because he has expectation of a return on what was invested. No investment no faith. No expectation (hope). His faith/belief/trust could be in the modified seed, new fertilizer for reasons like it worked before or his trusted friend said this or that works for the yield necessary for a suitable return on an investment.


If you feed birds and the like where you live you will find that they and rabbits will begin to trust that you are not a threat to their well being.

What would you make of a farmer who claims to know, as matter of fact, that he will get a return on his investment?

People don"t farm God, do they? In most examples expressed through biblical prophets, and the Lord Jesus Christ, God farms men as though men are the ground, which technically they are by the way, (dust to dust).

The example is to show faith placed in the living of everyday life, could be any human activity that requires belief in the fulfillment of what is promised or promising. Could be one"s belief in the fulfillment of a agreement that a contractor will remodeled one"s house as promised. The example isn"t the subject. Faith can be as simple as, "in God we trust, all others pay cash". Which shows were someone places their trust when transaction are involved.

So for the true Christian its fulfillment in Christ that is promised, of which Jesus showed to the faithful.

You refer to the second definition of belief. I'm not trying to refute that.

For the sake of argument, please could you humour me and answer the question in my previous post?

That"s the answer you get in ref to the farmer. Faith into fact is well-placed faith.

And then there's a drought or some other kind of natural disaster and the crops are ruined. As often happens around the world...

There is no place for objectivity in belief. In fact I'd go so far as to say that I think such a thing is in every way impossible.

Well if that"s what you think then it must be true, because you thought it, right?

No, it's my opinion.


So according to you, no one should do anything because something bad could happen, correct? It is possible that the farmer will succeed, not only that, it is possible the farmer could reap more then his expectations. But how that is done, mainly comes down to what you place your faith in, and nothing is done without it. The first to do so that others may follow was based on faith. A rabbit trusts its instincts and experience to cross the opening to get to the food, that the rabbit believes is there.

Regardless of the possibility of whatever outcome, it is still all subjective. I have taken big risks in my life, happily relying on my opinions.


You will not do anything without placing your faith with the hope of fulillment therein.

I know. That's covered by the second definition of belief.
To believe is to know nothing.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 11:19:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 10:09:13 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/27/2014 8:47:29 AM, LifeMeansGodIsGood wrote:
At 11/26/2014 5:25:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
If you Google "belief" you are presented with two definitions:

1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).


I believe you are goofy, but that is a subjective belief based on your attempt to separate belief from facts. When you move to sit in a chair, you believe the chair is going to hold you based on facts; such as the perhaps you saw somebody your size or bigger sitting in the chair before you or you can see by a glance that the chair looks strong enough to hold you.

One doesn't know that a chair will hold their weight or indeed if they'll even make it to the chair to sit on it. There could be a whole host of things that stop you even reaching the chair and in the event that you do sit down, however likely that may be, someone could have taken all the screws out. One simply trusts that it will hold their weight based on past experiences.

You simply hate the word "faith. Sitting in the chair is an act of faith. You believe the chair will hold you. Somebody may have taken the screws out, but you sit in it by faith.

What if someone is colour blind and the sky appears pink? What if its early in the morning or late at night when the earth's atmosphere alters the wavelength of sunlight entering your eye, making the sky appear a different colour?

is the sky pink or is it blue? if you see it as pink, does that make it pink and not blue? Is the sky pink or are your eyes defective?

I don't hate something that I don't think is real. Remember, I'm not making factual claims here. Look at it this way. I'm about as scared of going to Hell as you are of Allah walking through the door and slapping you across the face. You don't know it won't happen but you've got an opinion about its likelihood.


You are making factual claims here. You are stating that faith is sinister, but then you say that is only an idea in your mind so you are not stating it is as fact. What is real is when you sit in the chair.

Why do you talk about being slapped accross the face like that? Did your parents abuse you that way? You hate faith so much that you are trying to prove you yourself do not act in faith. You are insane, do you know that? It's called "denial", and you think you are exempt from Hell. Why don't you slap your mother in the face, boy?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 1:00:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 9:38:29 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/27/2014 8:27:32 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:24:36 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 11/26/2014 5:25:04 AM, Impartial wrote:
If you Google "belief" you are presented with two definitions:

1. An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. Trust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something).

First of all I did indeed Google "belief" and what I got was this...

1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"belief in the value of hard work"


Now a lot of people hate organised religion because of all the things that have and are being done in its name. Although in my mind, religion is a byproduct of something much more sinister. Something that can be described very concisely by the first definition of belief.

So you view any religion through an assertion?

No, an opinion.



I have no issue with faith because it is subjective. But I think there is nothing worse than when faith is turned into fact. New perspectives on this are sincerely welcome.

Scriptural faith is not used to guess God exists, as believers we are to know God exists before faith is even an option (Hebrews 11:6). That's because faith was never intended to supplement the existence of God, but to prove His existence, what we see as wide spread faith today is not what faith is in scripture and of course that is the fault of the people. Faith is not ALL believers have, it is a single element of the Christian belief and varies from person to person.

Jesus was the ultimate example of what faith is when it pertains to God, it is an action which brings forth results and reveals a persons true beliefs, it separates the real from the fakes.

I'm sorry but I don't accept your circular reasoning. It simply isn't valid in this day and age. I don't mean to cause offense but what we are both expressing are opinions. My aim is not to disprove particular beliefs but to show that it is impossible to falsely mutate an opinion into truth.

Well then to what religion are you suggesting? When you say "religion" I assume you include Christianity, and if that is the case your opinion is a strawman. And what "opinion" am I expressing? It's not an opinion regarding Christianity, I can support my "opinion". What circular reasoning? and what is not valid in this day and age? You have to provide good reasons for your argument, show the verses in scripture that provide the groundwork for your claim to verify you know what you are talking about in any particular "religion" because faith is no longer a single definition. First you must understand what faith is in Christianity (assuming this is one of the religions you are referring) before you can start asserting things that is why I rambled about it.

I'm suggesting all religions as in all scenarios in which a person is so stuck to their opinions thay they consider them facts. As I've mentioned before, specific beliefs are irrelevant to this argument. That includes specific religions. They are both subjective!

The book says it's true, therefore it must be true because the book says so. That's circular reasoning. It's not valid because it's a logical fallacy.

Ok, so you accept that faith has no single definition. Good. I'll therefore reiterate. I think that (I don't assert that) belief, as in the acceptance that something is true, especially without proof, is fundamentally impossible. I want to hammer this home because I am essentially trying to disprove a positive. I therefore don't actually have the burden of proof.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 1:11:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 10:35:43 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Belief, fact, faith work together!, the one works with the other.
Faith is the result of belief which is to observe the facts. I may begin to have "faith" in my spouse based on the evidence of what is true, the spouse has given reason for the faith by the evidence of what is observed, belief is enforced and faith is strengthened resulting in greater faith. I now have faith that is based on evidence through belief.
In Christianity faith works the same way, it is confidence in God based on facts.

Your use of the word evidence is incorrect. But I congratulate you for trying. I have faith in my girlfriend, I trust her. But I also had faith in my ex-girlfriend and I trusted her. She turned out to be crazy. I observed her being kind and sweet etc. That was never evidence of any kind, nor is it with my current girlfriend. It was my own experience of her that made me trust and adore her. No facts involved. Observations and experieinces are purely subjective and still are.

Do you understand now?
To believe is to know nothing.