Where Do You Put Your Faith?

[Kfox]

Defined by whom?

Jesus. The person I was responding to I suspect is christian, so I was responding in the context of what a Christian believes.

faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

faith means - Google Search

www.google.com

That does not mean that one what has trust and confidence in is unseen. It might be unseen or not.
Jesus was seen, Baha'u'llah was seen. All the Messengers of God were seen.

That does not mean that one what has trust and confidence in is unseen. It might be unseen or not.
Jesus was seen, Baha'u'llah was seen. All the Messengers of God were seen

Faith might be blind or not. If there is evidence for what we put our faith in then our faith is not blind.
There is evidence that the Messengers were sent by God, but there is no proof.
Since God can never be proven to exist, how could we ever prove that God sent Messengers?

Sounds like blind faith to me.

 

[nPeace]

Jesus. The person I was responding to I suspect is christian, so I was responding in the context of what a Christian believes.

That does not mean that one what has trust and confidence in is unseen. It might be unseen or not.
Jesus was seen, Baha'u'llah was seen. All the Messengers of God were seen

Sounds like blind faith to me.

We were referring to faith as defined in the Bible.

(Hebrews 11:1) . . .Faith is the assured expectation [Greek *hupostasis (support, substance, steadinessv; (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality)] of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities [Greek *elegchos (a proof, test; a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested; evidence)] that are not seen.

* hypóstasis(from 5259 /hypó, "under" and 2476 /hístēmi, "to stand") – properly, (to possess) standing under a guaranteed agreement ("title-deed"); (figuratively) "title" to a promise or property, i.e. a legitimate claim (because it literally is, "under a legal-standing") – entitling someone to what is guaranteed under the particular agreement.

One can't read this, and come away with that faith being blind.
Can you reiterate why you would call this blind faith?

 

[PureX]

Jesus. The person I was responding to I suspect is christian, so I was responding in the context of what a Christian believes.

That does not mean that one what has trust and confidence in is unseen. It might be unseen or not.
Jesus was seen, Baha'u'llah was seen. All the Messengers of God were seen

Sounds like blind faith to me.

I don't think there is any such thing as blind faith, really. We all have some reason why we choose to trust and hope in whatever it is we are trusting and hoping in. Just because those aren't my reasons doesn't mean they are engaging in "blind faith".

 

[Little Dragon]

I don't think there is any such thing as blind faith, really. We all have some reason why we choose to trust and hope in whatever it is we are trusting and hoping in. Just because those aren't my reasons doesn't mean they are engaging in "blind faith".

Maybe not, but if they cannot demonstrate why they put trust and hope in something that cannot be detected or observed on any level. Then they should not attempt to convince others to abandon their own belief systems.

 

[nPeace]

Maybe not, but if they cannot demonstrate why they put trust and hope in something that cannot be detected or observed on any level.

Cannot be detected on any level, sounds like the same thing as blindly believing.
If one cannot detect love, then they are blindly marrying the person.
If one cannot detect hunger, they have no way of knowing they need to eat. Being unable to detect thirst, is worse.
If there is no way to detect God, one cannot claim to have faith. That's not Biblical faith. See definition.

Then they should not attempt to convince others to abandon their own belief systems.

I know Christians preach and share knowledge about God, but I have never seen them 'attempt to convince others to abandon their own belief systems.' here, for sure, but I do see atheists attempting to convince others to abandon their own belief systems.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I do see atheists attempting to convince others to abandon their own belief systems.

Who's trying to convert theists? I never even think about or discuss the matter except when a theists is proselytizing, and even then I'm not trying to change his mind, just to tell him why I don't think that way. That would be a waste of time not only because it would be impossible to make any headway against a faith-based confirmation bias, but because it really doesn't matter.

If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and give his like meaning, that's fine, as long as he isn’t violently insane, sacrificing animals, and he keeps the noise down. One might mind such a neighbor if he believes in things like devils and evil in the religious sense, but an atheist isn't concerned with that, just the other things I mentioned.

I don't think there is any such thing as blind faith, really. We all have some reason why we choose to trust and hope in whatever it is we are trusting and hoping in. Just because those aren't my reasons doesn't mean they are engaging in "blind faith".

If that reason isn't a sound conclusion based in evidence properly understood, then the belief is faith-based. What blind refers to here is the opposite of what evidence refers to. Evidence is what is evident to the senses, the absence of which makes belief blind (or deaf or anosmic). Hope is not faith, and trust based in experience properly understood is not faith.

Your team is behind 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth inning. You hope they win, but experience tells you that that is unlikely. There is zero faith there however the game turns out. Zero. It becomes faith when you believe that your team will win because you think a god told you that.

I turn the ignition key in my car. I hope it will start, and I expect it to based inexperience - what you call trust and I call justified belief. But I also know that sometimes, cars don't start. Again, there is zero faith there. But if you drive drunk because you believe you have a guardian angel watching over you, THAT'S faith - unjustified belief NOT based in experience properly understood.

There is nothing meritorious about unjustified belief. If you need to foster such a belief to feel comfortable, that's unfortunate. You'd be better off if you could be comfortable without such a belief, and being in such a condition doesn't make the belief more likely to be correct, just useful, like glasses to somebody who needs them to read, which one is also better off not needing or benefiting from.

 

[nPeace]

Who's trying to convert theists? I never even think about or discuss the matter except when a theists is proselytizing, and even then I'm not trying to change his mind, just to tell him why I don't think that way. That would be a waste of time not only because it would be impossible to make any headway against a faith-based confirmation bias, but because it really doesn't matter.

If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and give his like meaning, that's fine, as long as he isn’t violently insane, sacrificing animals, and he keeps the noise down. One might mind such a neighbor if he believes in things like devils and evil in the religious sense, but an atheist isn't concerned with that, just the other things I mentioned.

Sorry. I didn't realize your name was Atheists.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry. I didn't realize your name was Atheists.

That's a good solid answer. It shows respect. Addresses the points being made. Has a funny face. I don't think you could have come up with anything better.

 

[Little Dragon]

If one cannot detect love

Love is attachment, an emotional response, of hormonal origin. Love has no measurable physical parameters. Other than indirect inference as electrochemical signals in the brain. I do not understand your point.

 

[Little Dragon]

I know Christians preach and share knowledge about God, but I have never seen them 'attempt to convince others to abandon their own belief systems.' here, for sure, but I do see atheists attempting to convince others to abandon their own belief systems.

Possibly, I am agnostic. I challenge everyone to examine their beliefs, critically and with as little emotive bias as possible, as objectively as possible.

 

[PureX]

Maybe not, but if they cannot demonstrate why they put trust and hope in something that cannot be detected or observed on any level. Then they should not attempt to convince others to abandon their own belief systems.

There is nothing to be "demonstrated. Faith is a choice. Why we choose it and what we choose to apply it to is up to us. Period.

 

[PureX]

If that reason isn't a sound conclusion based in evidence properly understood, then the belief is faith-based.

As I just posted, no one else's faith choices, or their reasoning for it has to accord with yours. Why you think you are in charge of judging someone else's reasoning when you clearly are not is something you need to address within yourself.

What blind refers to here is the opposite of what evidence refers to.

Again, YOUR adjudged definition here does not apply to anyone else. Others have their reasons, whether you approve of them or consider them valid or not.

Evidence is what is evident to the senses, the absence of which makes belief blind (or deaf or anosmic).

That's only true for you materialists. For the rest of humanity evidence is a far more encompassing area of cognitive experience.

Hope is not faith, and trust based in experience properly understood is not faith.

'Faith' is choosing to act on one's hope that "X" is true, or will turn out to be true, when one cannot know that it is or will be. And the reasons one might choose to follow this course of action are many, and varied, and to be determined by the individual.

 

[Little Dragon]

Why we choose it and what we choose to apply it to is up to us.

Don't care, people should, in a perfect world, keep their absurdities to themselves.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why you think you are in charge of judging someone else's reasoning

I evaluate everything I read. I judge the reasoning of others for validity and their arguments for soundness. When their arguments are sound, they are convincing. When they are fallacious, they should be rejected for inclusion in one's own belief set.

YOUR adjudged definition here does not apply to anyone else. Others have their reasons, whether you approve of them or consider them valid or not.

My definition of blind DOES apply to others. Some can be said to use blind faith, while others have chosen to avoid it.

That's only true for you materialists. For the rest of humanity evidence is a far more encompassing area of cognitive experience.

How unfortunate for the rest of humanity to consider that not evident to the senses evidence. It's the same word in it adjectival and noun forms. Evidence is what is evident to the senses. If one wants to treat the objects of his imagination the same as he does the evidence of reality that his senses provide, he's made a mistake. And if he applies those beliefs to life choices, then the mistake can be costly.

'Faith' is choosing to act on one's hope that "X" is true, or will turn out to be true, when one cannot know that it is or will be.

I've already disagreed with that and told you why. Did you want to deal with that or just repeat your already-rebutted claim? Hint: starting a car. Zero faith (insufficiently justified belief) is required to know that a car that started the last several hundred times it was tested will probably start the next time as well but might not. We hope it will start and turn the key not knowing for certain what will transpire.

Can you address that? Do you think that comment contains an error? If so, what is the error and how do you claim to know it's wrong? And if you can't do that, can you admit that the comment is unfalsifiable by you? That's what dialectic looks like - people actually engaging in debate, people with contradictory opinions trying to resolve them through rebuttal, which is a specific form of dissent, the one that involves efforts at mutual falsification. That means for you to explain why my answer about faith was incorrect if you think it is, not merely disagree and repeat yourself.

 

[PureX]

I evaluate everything I read. I judge the reasoning of others for validity and their arguments for soundness. When their arguments are sound, they are convincing. When they are fallacious, they should be rejected for inclusion in one's own belief set.

You didn't answer the question,

 

[Little Dragon]

If one wants to treat the objects of his imagination the same as he does the evidence of reality that his senses provide, he's made a mistake. And if he applies those beliefs to life choices, then the mistake can be costly.

Right!

The crux.

 

[Little Dragon]

You didn't answer the question,

I disagree, as an observer to your dialogue. I'd say it was answered satisfactorily.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You didn't answer the question

Was that a question? All I saw was snark and deflection in the form of a rhetorical and loaded "question."

I did, however, turn it into a question worthy of a reply, and gave you a good answer to the question you should have asked. Not surprisingly, your reply was irrelevant.

I don't have to ask you the same question about why you ignored the material you were specifically asked to address. You can't. Why? Because you're wrong and there is no answer you could give that doesn't underscore that, so you ignored it. But that's an answer, too. You might as well have written out, "That comment embarrasses me, I can't rebut it, so I'll just pretend he never wrote those words and hope the matter goes away and is forgotten."

 

[Kfox]

We were referring to faith as defined in the Bible.

(Hebrews 11:1) . . .Faith is the assured expectation [Greek *hupostasis (support, substance, steadinessv; (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality)] of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities [Greek *elegchos (a proof, test; a proof, that by which a thing is proved or tested; evidence)] that are not seen.

* hypóstasis(from 5259 /hypó, "under" and 2476 /hístēmi, "to stand") – properly, (to possess) standing under a guaranteed agreement ("title-deed"); (figuratively) "title" to a promise or property, i.e. a legitimate claim (because it literally is, "under a legal-standing") – entitling someone to what is guaranteed under the particular agreement.

One can't read this, and come away with that faith being blind.
Can you reiterate why you would call this blind faith?

Here is how I see it.

Substance of things hoped for:
What is hoped for has nothing to do with reality; hoped for is pretty much wishful thinking.

Evidence of things unseen:
Unseen means blind. This part means whatever evidence you have is completely blind

IOW faith is wishful thinking based on blind evidence.

 

[Kfox]

I don't think there is any such thing as blind faith, really. We all have some reason why we choose to trust and hope in whatever it is we are trusting and hoping in. Just because those aren't my reasons doesn't mean they are engaging in "blind faith".

Blind faith simply means there is no empirical evidence to support it. This happens all the time.