How is faith a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

[JustWondering]

Oh dear.... oh dear! That old chestnut.
Let me help you........ although I would take a transfusion, or sign for my wife to have one, please just stop and think...
1. How many people have died in the last 50 years because they refused a transfusion?
2. How many people have died in the last 50 years because they agreed to a transfusion?

You believe in loads of stuff that probably isn't reasonable. I know parents who don't believe in kids seat-belt laws, who think that smoking at home is ok, who don't agree with giving tramps money (oh! they only spend it on cider!) etc etc.

Whether you like it or not, you will almost certainly have loads of 'beliefs' and 'faiths' which are unreasonable to others, one of which is this:- You believe that you are more reasonable than Jehovah's Witnesses.

Jehovah's Witness refused blood transfusion after C-section | Daily Mail Online

 

[JustWondering]

No distinction really, no worldview, belief system or ideology is of itself virtuous and reasonable. The OP asked if there is any rational argument that faith is virtuous and reasonable, and how faith in an unprovable supernatural being can possibly be a good thing, was just noting that any belief that provides benefit is rational. Justifications for beliefs are not important, the effects of having these beliefs is the main thing.

Religion is just a mix of tradition, ritual, wisdom and culture. It is a source of knowledge just as science is, not the same type of course, but knowledge none the less. Importantly, any source of knowledge that lasts thousands of years must have some benefits, otherwise it wouldn't still exist. What is rational is what provides benefit, not what is 'objectively' correct.

Do you think beliefs should be challenged or justified when they cause needless death and suffering or should people continue to just mindlessly follow said beliefs? The problem with some religious belief systems is that they are set up in a way that believers are to never question them. I do not find that rational, IMO.

 

[oldbadger]

Jehovah's Witness refused blood transfusion after C-section | Daily Mail Online

You found a JW death..........
Remember my point?
1. How many people have died in the last 50 years because they refused a transfusion?
2. How many people have died in the last 50 years because they agreed to a transfusion?

.........and you posted a death to try and wion your position?
Now have 88 US deaths from 2012 caused by or in connection with blood transfusions:-
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVa...m/TransfusionDonationFatalities/ucm346639.htm

Results
During FY2012 (October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012), we received a total of 88 fatality reports. Of these reports, 74 were transfusion recipient fatalities and 14 were post-donation fatalities.
Of the 74 transfusion recipient fatality reports, we concluded:
38 (51%) of the fatalities were transfusion-related,
27 (36%) of the fatalities were cases in which transfusion could not be ruled out as the cause of the fatality,
9 (12%) of the fatalities were unrelated to the transfusion.
Of the 14 post-donation fatality reports, we concluded:
11 of the fatalities were cases in which donation could not be ruled out as the cause of the fatality,
3 of the fatalities were unrelated to the donation.

....so much for your prejudice and self righteous condemnation of JW principles.

 

[Augustus]

Do you think beliefs should be challenged or justified when they cause needless death and suffering or should people continue to just mindlessly follow said beliefs? The problem with some religious belief systems is that they are set up in a way that believers are to never question them. I do not find that rational, IMO.

Yes, of course they should be challenged when they do harm. People have always challenged harmful acts carried out in the name of religion though, frequently from within the religion itself.

Anyway, believers have constantly been challenging all kinds of religious beliefs, that's how religions evolve.

People cause needless suffering for all sorts of reasons, people do good for all kinds of reason. When beliefs cause harm it is correct to criticise them, but if someone is carrying out good acts because some God wants them to, why is there a need to challenge that?

If people stop being religious, most will find a replacement worldview to take its place, nature abhors a vacuum after all. It is a pretty big leap of faith to assume that many people wouldn't adopt a more harmful/less beneficial belief system. They definitely aren't all going to become liberal humanists.

 

[JustWondering]

You found a JW death..........
Remember my point?
1. How many people have died in the last 50 years because they refused a transfusion?
2. How many people have died in the last 50 years because they agreed to a transfusion?

.........and you posted a death to try and wion your position?
Now have 88 US deaths from 2012 caused by or in connection with blood transfusions:-
Fatalities Reported to FDA Following Blood Collection and Transfusion: Annual Summary for Fiscal Year 2012

Results
During FY2012 (October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012), we received a total of 88 fatality reports. Of these reports, 74 were transfusion recipient fatalities and 14 were post-donation fatalities.
Of the 74 transfusion recipient fatality reports, we concluded:
38 (51%) of the fatalities were transfusion-related,
27 (36%) of the fatalities were cases in which transfusion could not be ruled out as the cause of the fatality,
9 (12%) of the fatalities were unrelated to the transfusion.
Of the 14 post-donation fatality reports, we concluded:
11 of the fatalities were cases in which donation could not be ruled out as the cause of the fatality,
3 of the fatalities were unrelated to the donation.

....so much for your prejudice and self righteous condemnation of JW principles.

I did prove my point, sorry if one person losing their life and one child losing a mother and another losing a spouse needlessly is of little importance to you. If challenging and opposing dogmatic, mindless faith in things that cause needless, obvious harm makes someone prejudice than I guess I am prejudice against things that cause harm to people. Is that supposed to make me a horrible, irrational person?

 

[JustWondering]

People cause needless suffering for all sorts of reasons, people do good for all kinds of reason. When beliefs cause harm it is correct to criticise them, but if someone is carrying out good acts because some God wants them to, why is there a need to challenge that?

I am challenging the value of unproven faith. Particularly unproven faith in the supernatural. When it comes down to it people believe because they WANT to believe. Is that not irrational behavior?

If people stop being religious, most will find a replacement worldview to take its place, nature abhors a vacuum after all. It is a pretty big leap of faith to assume that many people wouldn't adopt a more harmful/less beneficial belief system. They definitely aren't all going to become liberal humanists.

Regardless of what I think of supernatural belief systems I am sure they will plague humanity for as long as humanity exists.

 

[Sapiens]

Now I see why you call yourself Jerk, you have faith that there is no God, not proof, perhaps you think you have evidence, do you have faith that gravity exists, I think so, perhaps you have more proof for gravity, but to many of us God is just as real as gravity.

It is impossible to logically prove the non-existence of anything, that's why the burden of proof in on the believer ... got any proof?

Gravity does not require faith, it is easily demonstrable. Can you demonstrate your god by dropping him off a tower in Pisa?

God is a delusion (or an anthropomorphism of concepts, if you prefer), based on the human need for explanations. That is born out by how uncomfortable most humans are with the idea of ever saying ""I don't know."

 

[Augustus]

I am challenging the value of unproven faith. Particularly unproven faith in the supernatural. When it comes down to it people believe because they WANT to believe. Is that not irrational behavior?

Given that 99% of humans in history have had unproven faith in the supernatural (to some extent), how could it be considered irrational?

We all believe many things simply because we want to believe them, it's part of our psychology: inbuilt, hardwired and therefore rational.

 

[JustWondering]

Given that 99% of humans in history have had unproven faith in the supernatural (to some extent), how could it be considered irrational?

We all believe many things simply because we want to believe them, it's part of our psychology: inbuilt, hardwired and therefore rational.

A rational explanation for irrational behavior does not make the behavior any less irrational.

 

[Cephus]

Given that 99% of humans in history have had unproven faith in the supernatural (to some extent), how could it be considered irrational?

We all believe many things simply because we want to believe them, it's part of our psychology: inbuilt, hardwired and therefore rational.

The idea that people are just going to be stupid, therefore we ought to accept and embrace their stupidity is really a pretty stupid idea, you know?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is impossible to logically prove the non-existence of anything, that's why the burden of proof in on the believer ... got any proof?

Gravity does not require faith, it is easily demonstrable. Can you demonstrate your god by dropping him off a tower in Pisa?

God is a delusion (or an anthropomorphism of concepts, if you prefer), based on the human need for explanations. That is born out by how uncomfortable most humans are with the idea of ever saying ""I don't know."

It is very easy to prove the non existence of something, the dodo bird does not exist amymore. That whole idea that non existence cannot be proven is an atheistic trap to seduce believers into proposing the existence of God is a fact, but without evidence for the fact. The existence of God is a matter of opinion same as beauty is a matter of opinion.

And evolutionists who don't understand the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact are social darwinists. Watch out! The most evil group of pseudoscientists there ever was.

 

[oldbadger]

I did prove my point, sorry if one person losing their life and one child losing a mother and another losing a spouse needlessly is of little importance to you. If challenging and opposing dogmatic, mindless faith in things that cause needless, obvious harm makes someone prejudice than I guess I am prejudice against things that cause harm to people. Is that supposed to make me a horrible, irrational person?

No...... you proved nothing but your prejudice.
You need to find some more JW deaths, don't you........ about 100 a year would give you an argument.
In the meantime, here's some more reading for you....

But now there are concerns that, while blood transfusions have indeed saved lives, they may have also claimed them.
Recent studies suggest undergoing a blood transfusion during surgery subsequently increases the patient's risk of death - particularly from heart attacks or strokes - and of serious illnesses, such as septicaemia, pneumonia and cancer of the lymph glands.
Recent studies suggest undergoing a blood transfusion during surgery increases the risk of death
Recent studies suggest undergoing a blood transfusion during surgery increases the risk of death
Experts fear NHS surgeons are unaware of the risks of using transfusions except where they are absolutely vital.
The exact reason why being given a stranger's blood may have such a devastating effect is a mystery. But it is not linked to contaminated blood infecting them with deadly viruses.
Instead, scientists are investigating two possible causes. One is that donated blood, instead of boosting a sick person's ability to ward off infection, might leave their immune system unable to resist attacks by bacteria and viruses.


Read more: They are supposed to save lives, but could a blood transfusion give you a heart attack? | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Cephus]

It is very easy to prove the non existence of something, the dodo bird does not exist amymore. That whole idea that non existence cannot be proven is an atheistic trap to seduce believers into proposing the existence of God is a fact, but without evidence for the fact. The existence of God is a matter of opinion same as beauty is a matter of opinion.

And evolutionists who don't understand the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact are social darwinists. Watch out! The most evil group of pseudoscientists there ever was.

Really? Prove it. I think you'll find that proving the non-existence of something is pretty darned difficult. Hint: just because you can't find one doesn't mean one doesn't exist somewhere.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Really? Prove it. I think you'll find that proving the non-existence of something is pretty darned difficult. Hint: just because you can't find one doesn't mean one doesn't exist somewhere.

It is nonsense, a trap. That you can't find one is reasonable proof no dodo bird exists.

 

[Thruve]

wtf ever happened to faith also being hope?

 

[Cephus]

It is nonsense, a trap. That you can't find one is reasonable proof no dodo bird exists.

Nope, sorry. By that token, atoms didn't exist until we discovered them. The universe existed for billions of years without atoms until we came along and found one. Amazing!

 

[JustWondering]

No...... you proved nothing but your prejudice.
You need to find some more JW deaths, don't you........ about 100 a year would give you an argument.
In the meantime, here's some more reading for you....

But now there are concerns that, while blood transfusions have indeed saved lives, they may have also claimed them.
Recent studies suggest undergoing a blood transfusion during surgery subsequently increases the patient's risk of death - particularly from heart attacks or strokes - and of serious illnesses, such as septicaemia, pneumonia and cancer of the lymph glands.
Recent studies suggest undergoing a blood transfusion during surgery increases the risk of death
Recent studies suggest undergoing a blood transfusion during surgery increases the risk of death
Experts fear NHS surgeons are unaware of the risks of using transfusions except where they are absolutely vital.
The exact reason why being given a stranger's blood may have such a devastating effect is a mystery. But it is not linked to contaminated blood infecting them with deadly viruses.
Instead, scientists are investigating two possible causes. One is that donated blood, instead of boosting a sick person's ability to ward off infection, might leave their immune system unable to resist attacks by bacteria and viruses.


Read more: They are supposed to save lives, but could a blood transfusion give you a heart attack? | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The original question I asked you was if you believed that faith based beliefs were worth dying for was reasonable? Apparently your answer to that question is yes. For me, denying medical treatment because an invisible sky daddy says modern medicine is evil seems like a ignorant, delusional and dangerous mindset.

Reality show snake-handling preacher dies -- of snakebite - CNN.com

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope, sorry. By that token, atoms didn't exist until we discovered them. The universe existed for billions of years without atoms until we came along and found one. Amazing!

It is simply nonsense reasoning like doing maths without the 0. There are 0 dodo birds, the 0 is valid maths.

 

[Sapiens]

With respect to dodos: it is within the realm of possibility, unlikely but possible, that dodos still exist on a remote unexplored Pacific Island. I do not expect that the do, but I can not prove that they don't. Similarly it is not outside the realm of possibility that a dodo could have been cloned using existing tissue, again, unlikely, but again, not outside the realm of possibility, As a third option it is possible that there are dodos in the rare bird collection of some eccentric one-percenter and he keeps it quiet so that he may enjoy them in private, also not likely but ...

So, for anyone to say unequivocally, that there are no dodos, that there is no possibility of dodos, is, at best, ignorant and at worst reckless.

 

[McBell]

Given that 99% of humans in history have had unproven faith in the supernatural (to some extent), how could it be considered irrational?

We all believe many things simply because we want to believe them, it's part of our psychology: inbuilt, hardwired and therefore rational.

things that are irrational are irrational regardless of how many people believe in the irrational thing.