Is Faith Certainty?

[Grandliseur]

Your definition is probably as defined by atheists." You just said your definition of faith comes to you though Christians over 2000 years, yet now you say you don't read them?

You are not making sense. I said I read my Bible, not what other Christian books, magazines are written nowadays. Please pay attention. I even see you quote me saying that; so, what is it with this first nonsense?! Try a little rationality here, please.
-----------
If you have some Bible based question, I will of course answer it using scriptures. I do not care what Protestants, Catholics, JWs, or the LDS church believe in. I only care for what the Bible teaches us. But, no atheist would be interested in this. All they want is to mock anything connected with scripture.

 

[Windwalker]

You are not making sense. I said I read my Bible, not what other Christian books, magazines are written nowadays. Please pay attention. I even see you quote me saying that; so, what is it with this first nonsense?! Try a little rationality here, please.
-----------
If you have some Bible based question, I will of course answer it using scriptures. I do not care what Protestants, Catholics, JWs, or the LDS church believe in. I only care for what the Bible teaches us. But, no atheist would be interested in this. All they want is to mock anything connected with scripture.

That you don't follow the logic of what I say does not mean I am not logical. It means you don't follow. What I said is you cannot claim to read the Bible without having the influence of other Christian thought being part of how you read and interpret it. You are not reading it in a vacuum. So when you say you don't care what all these others believe, you really should, as how they believe is part of what has shaped how you believe. Their voices colorize your own thinking, you believe errantly that you arrive at independently.

 

[Grandliseur]

That you don't follow the logic of what I say does not mean I am not logical. It means you don't follow. What I said is you cannot claim to read the Bible without having the influence of other Christian thought being part of how you read and interpret it. You are not reading it in a vacuum. So when you say you don't care what all these others believe, you really should, as how they believe is part of what has shaped how you believe. Their voices colorize your own thinking, you believe errantly that you arrive at independently.

Since I was a small child, I went to church, read my Bible. No longer do I read what other people write in so called Christian books, or literature, unless a quote is given me that is of interest. My only study guide on direct Biblical dogma is the Bible; naturally, when it comes to historical matters, archaeological matters I refer to outside sources.

I care not for what various churches claim.

 

[Windwalker]

Since I was a small child, I went to church, read my Bible. No longer do I read what other people write in so called Christian books, or literature, unless a quote is given me that is of interest. My only study guide on direct Biblical dogma is the Bible; naturally, when it comes to historical matters, archaeological matters I refer to outside sources.

I care not for what various churches claim.

Again, their thoughts are already in your head influencing how you read it today. Their voices are right there in your ears giving you the basic understanding you are building everything else you do in your independent reading today. If however you did read others, specifically those who challenge you - such as myself - you can expand your foundation to not just follow that one train of thought you were conditioned to think within from those in your childhood, to actually be more than just another of those same voices repeating the same line of thinking. You do yourself a disservice to not explore other's perspectives than your own. When you isolate yourself like that, you end up with a rather myopic view that limits you.

 

[Ponder This]

That's not in dispute between us.

But since there are other ways than belief in a supernatural agency to arrive at the same improved place, and they produce no worse results than the alternative, this doesn't demonstrate the existence of the supernatural agency, only the use of belief in one for certain cases.

I'm not sure that we're disagreeing on this. Are we?

Faith in a supernatural agency is all well and good, I suppose, but there isn't any particular reason a person needs to believe that the future will be full filled by supernatural means or needs to rule that out, because a person doesn't necessarily need to know how something will come about to have faith that it will. I realize it may seem rather basic to have to describe what a word means and how it actually operates, but sometimes this is the only way to prevent confusions. Do you disagree?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

ok...the two words are synonyms

No. They're not. "Evidence" is much more broad than "proof"; as "proof" is that which establishes a "truth" in a given statement whereas "evidence" is often a piece of the pie that leads to "proof".

and in matters of faith
no evidence is required
so tell me your belief

you need not present evidence

And a claim made without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.

The OED is the recognized authority on such matters; you are just a guy with an opinion; cherry picking definitions.

You've been kind enough to post the definitions; and they establish what I am saying:

I. Senses relating to the establishment or demonstration of truth or validity

a. Something that proves a statement; evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of anything, or belief in the certainty of something; an instance of this.†to make proof: to carry weight as evidence (obs.). proof positive n. definite, absolute, or incontrovertible proof

Yet many people believe many things without "proof". To quote Darth Vader, "You know this to be true". Why do you feel compelled to continue a lost argument?

"The action or fact of experiencing or having experience of something; knowledge derived from this; experience."

Like I said: Gushy feelings while praying or whatnot is "evidence" of "something"; and certainly isn't "proof" of what you want it to "prove".

I'll tell you what, when you learn how to use quotation marks correctly then maybe I'll listen to your opinion on the semantics.

Okay, you're right; I was just being lazy; but if you are to ignore my arguments based solely on my punctuation, then I guess a few of us are really striking some chords with you. So allow me to rewrite:

Like I said: Gushy feelings while praying or whatnot is evidence of something; and certainly isn't proof of what you want it to prove.

Those who believe in dragons, mermaids, God, conspiracy theories or whatnot all believe they have proof or evidence of their claim; but their evidence fails scrutiny which discounts any possibility of proof (that which establishes the fact of a given statement).

So therefore, people believe without proof.

Now; no more red herrings, okay? My rebuttal to you is simple: You claimed that people have faith in given things based on proof. This is demonstrably and obviously untrue; semantically and logically and demonstrably and simply false.

So therefore, "faith" (as the word is used by the theist) is certainty of nothing; as being convinced in a given "certainty" is not certainty. There is no objective, verifiable, testable, repeatable evidence claims requiring faith; so to have a feeling of certainty in things that are clearly not certainty crosses the line into delusion; or, at least, borders on it.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

No. They're not. "Evidence" is much more broad than "proof"; as "proof" is that which establishes a "truth" in a given statement whereas "evidence" is often a piece of the pie that leads to "proof".



And a claim made without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.



You've been kind enough to post the definitions; and they establish what I am saying:

I. Senses relating to the establishment or demonstration of truth or validity

a. Something that proves a statement; evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of anything, or belief in the certainty of something; an instance of this.†to make proof: to carry weight as evidence (obs.). proof positive n. definite, absolute, or incontrovertible proof

Yet many people believe many things without "proof". To quote Darth Vader, "You know this to be true". Why do you feel compelled to continue a lost argument?



Like I said: Gushy feelings while praying or whatnot is "evidence" of "something"; and certainly isn't "proof" of what you want it to "prove".



Okay, you're right; I was just being lazy; but if you are to ignore my arguments based solely on my punctuation, then I guess a few of us are really striking some chords with you. So allow me to rewrite:

Like I said: Gushy feelings while praying or whatnot is evidence of something; and certainly isn't proof of what you want it to prove.

Those who believe in dragons, mermaids, God, conspiracy theories or whatnot all believe they have proof or evidence of their claim; but their evidence fails scrutiny which discounts any possibility of proof (that which establishes the fact of a given statement).

So therefore, people believe without proof.

Now; no more red herrings, okay? My rebuttal to you is simple: You claimed that people have faith in given things based on proof. This is demonstrably and obviously untrue; semantically and logically and demonstrably and simply false.

So therefore, "faith" (as the word is used by the theist) is certainty of nothing; as being convinced in a given "certainty" is not certainty. There is no objective, verifiable, testable, repeatable evidence claims requiring faith; so to have a feeling of certainty in things that are clearly not certainty crosses the line into delusion; or, at least, borders on it.

TL;DR. I lost interest and no longer care.

 

[blü 2]

there isn't any particular reason a person needs to believe that the future will be full filled by supernatural means or needs to rule that out, because a person doesn't necessarily need to know how something will come about to have faith that it will. [...] Do you disagree?

No, I agree. Faith or confidence in a particular future outcome can be based on information, or simply attitude.

 

[Grandliseur]

Again, their thoughts are already in your head influencing how you read it today. Their voices are right there in your ears giving you the basic understanding you are building everything else you do in your independent reading today. If however you did read others, specifically those who challenge you - such as myself - you can expand your foundation to not just follow that one train of thought you were conditioned to think within from those in your childhood, to actually be more than just another of those same voices repeating the same line of thinking. You do yourself a disservice to not explore other's perspectives than your own. When you isolate yourself like that, you end up with a rather myopic view that limits you.

I agree that I also build on my interaction with others, though, I shape it nearly 100% on scripture presently. That doesn't change that I do not read other literature than the Bible for dogma. For historical, archaeological reasons, I do read non-Biblical material.
--------------
In another recent post of yours, I was quoted extensively saying things I never did. The only way I can see this done is by the one posting it editing the quotes. That post has been reported. ID theft must not be condoned. I phrased my report accordingly since I cannot prove it was your fault. That is up to the Webmaster to determine.

 

[Ponder This]

No, I agree. Faith or confidence in a particular future outcome can be based on information, or simply attitude.

To be precise, faith is an attitude (like courage or hope). It is a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something that is reflected in a person's behavior. Faith is not "based on" information. Rather, it is the value of information that is based on faith. This is why people can maintain faith in the face of information that suggests otherwise. Expectations based on information are not the same thing as faith. There is something very subtle happening here.
For example, people confuse the expectations from science with faith. Faith in science means placing one's trust in science and that's actually a different thing that the expectations formed from science experiments. The science is formed after results have been obtained, but faith in science is placed before a result that science predicts. A result can either justify one's faith or not depending on what the result was. In other words, faith in science means placing value on the information that science provides.

 

[idav]

Since I was a small child, I went to church, read my Bible. No longer do I read what other people write in so called Christian books, or literature, unless a quote is given me that is of interest. My only study guide on direct Biblical dogma is the Bible; naturally, when it comes to historical matters, archaeological matters I refer to outside sources.

I care not for what various churches claim.

That's interesting you take a sola scriptura approach but have no respect for the Catholics who actually put the Bible together in order to push their own agenda.

 

[Grandliseur]

That's interesting you take a sola scriptura approach but have no respect for the Catholics who actually put the Bible together in order to push their own agenda.

I have respect for some individual Catholics. I also respect their scholarly study. Then there is a lot that I don't.
If you claim that the Bible was put together by Catholics, I think you haven't studied the Bible enough. Why would you claim that?
Once you have thought about this, and perhaps put together an answer please look at my link here: (It will teach you if you read it, how things really worked)
Link: >Truth Seeker - The New Testament<

 

[Grandliseur]

you end up with a rather myopic view that limits you

I have attended a 7th day adventist church for a few years and got to understand their views fairly well. These didn't impress me, though the people were nice folks.

As to many other beliefs, the Trinity, Hell fire, that the dead live on, that Christ's presence began in 1914, that the rapture is of all Christians, when so many times it will be - frankly, I am happy to rid of that un-scriptural drag of baggage.

 

[Thief]

No. They're not. "Evidence" is much more broad than "proof"; as "proof" is that which establishes a "truth" in a given statement whereas "evidence" is often a piece of the pie that leads to "proof".



And a claim made without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.



You've been kind enough to post the definitions; and they establish what I am saying:

I. Senses relating to the establishment or demonstration of truth or validity

a. Something that proves a statement; evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of anything, or belief in the certainty of something; an instance of this.†to make proof: to carry weight as evidence (obs.). proof positive n. definite, absolute, or incontrovertible proof

Yet many people believe many things without "proof". To quote Darth Vader, "You know this to be true". Why do you feel compelled to continue a lost argument?



Like I said: Gushy feelings while praying or whatnot is "evidence" of "something"; and certainly isn't "proof" of what you want it to "prove".



Okay, you're right; I was just being lazy; but if you are to ignore my arguments based solely on my punctuation, then I guess a few of us are really striking some chords with you. So allow me to rewrite:

Like I said: Gushy feelings while praying or whatnot is evidence of something; and certainly isn't proof of what you want it to prove.

Those who believe in dragons, mermaids, God, conspiracy theories or whatnot all believe they have proof or evidence of their claim; but their evidence fails scrutiny which discounts any possibility of proof (that which establishes the fact of a given statement).

So therefore, people believe without proof.

Now; no more red herrings, okay? My rebuttal to you is simple: You claimed that people have faith in given things based on proof. This is demonstrably and obviously untrue; semantically and logically and demonstrably and simply false.

So therefore, "faith" (as the word is used by the theist) is certainty of nothing; as being convinced in a given "certainty" is not certainty. There is no objective, verifiable, testable, repeatable evidence claims requiring faith; so to have a feeling of certainty in things that are clearly not certainty crosses the line into delusion; or, at least, borders on it.

You're going to wait too long for that photo op