Let them come to us.

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think that we are talking at cross-purposes.

faith:
--------
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Naturally, there is a connection between the two.
It is possible to have "faith" in something, as you identify with a religious creed .. just as it is possible to have "faith" in something due to rational deduction.

You tar all theists with the same brush. You accuse them all of irrational belief.
I merely point our that rational belief [or facts, as you prefer to call them] can be wrong.

I have found no strong objective base for wrong for how we ought to live our life. Thus you are not wrong, you just do it differently.

 

[muhammad_isa]

First off... I'ld like to state that I made several big points in the post you are replying to and you have chosen to literally ignore them all and instead gave a one-liner reply..

If you think that I missed something important, you can point it out..

The main point you completely ignored, is that not all beliefs are equal in terms of merit and reason.

I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

It's a conviction in your mind, based on nothing but your own bias.

Yes, yes .. but the reason WHY we have that bias is important.
It might be evidence based .. and it might not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If you think that I missed something important, you can point it out..


I don't think anybody would disagree with that.


Yes, yes .. but the reason WHY we have that bias is important.
It might be evidence based .. and it might not.

Was that for me?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if you are so clear in your own view of reason and faith, why do you try to impose it on people who have faith and belief in religion.

What is your mission against religion or religious people who believe in what you yourself do not believe in?

There is no "mission". By all means, if you wish to believe things on faith, I can't stop you. You are a free person.

I'm arguing against the statement that believing things on such "faith" is a reasonable thing to do.

It isn't. By definition of the word "reasonable".

Believing things without verifiable evidence, is not reasonable.

 

[Spirit of Light]

There is no "mission". By all means, if you wish to believe things on faith, I can't stop you. You are a free person.

I'm arguing against the statement that believing things on such "faith" is a reasonable thing to do.

It isn't. By definition of the word "reasonable".

Believing things without verifiable evidence, is not reasonable.

Why is it not reasonable? Who deside what is reasonable for a faith believer?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why is it not reasonable?

Who are you addressing?

 

[Brian2]

You would have to demonstrate how that is reasonable with the use of verifiable evidence.
If you don't have such evidence, then believing it (on "faith") is by definition unreasonable.

Believing the Bible to be true is as reasonable on faith as believing it is not true on faith.

Yes. And it's place is in reason.
Faith is what you require if you don't have such evidence and want to believe anyway.

True. Faith is what bridges the gap between what we know and what we don't know.
We reach the end of what evidence can say and we make the leap of faith to "I believe" or "I believe not". And of course it might be presumptuous to say that the leap of faith for an atheist is actually a leap of faith. The atheist might not be able to leap that far and so remains in a non believing place.
Of course just what is seen as evidence for the Bible and what is seen as evidence against the Bible is also a matter of faith on both sides.

Obviously not.
But it is the most reliable way.
"faith" isn't reliable at all. Nore is it reasonable.

Faith is not reliable when it comes to science but religious belief is not science and science is no way when it comes to religious belief, except a way to think you are playing it safe by believing nothing instead of making the faith leap.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Believing the Bible to be true is as reasonable on faith as believing it is not true on faith.



True. Faith is what bridges the gap between what we know and what we don't know.
We reach the end of what evidence can say and we make the leap of faith to "I believe" or "I believe not". And of course it might be presumptuous to say that the leap of faith for an atheist is actually a leap of faith. The atheist might not be able to leap that far and so remains in a non believing place.
Of course just what is seen as evidence for the Bible and what is seen as evidence against the Bible is also a matter of faith on both sides.



Faith is not reliable when it comes to science but religious belief is not science and science is no way when it comes to religious belief, except a way to think you are playing it safe by believing nothing instead of making the faith leap.

Well, some forms of science as combined with philosophy are not different than religion.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Who are you addressing?

TagliatelleMonster only

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

TagliatelleMonster only

Sorry. I got him on ignore. My bad.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Sorry. I got him on ignore. My bad.

No problem

 

[Brian2]

Well, some forms of science as combined with philosophy are not different than religion.

That is what I would say but am usually knocked to the ground in the rush to refute it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is what I would say but am usually knocked to the ground in the rush to refute it.

Yeah, but there is a third way between:
- I know that the world is X and not Y
- I know that the world is Y and not X.
That is a lot of the debates and you are a part of that.
Here is mine: I don't know what the world is in that sense of in the end metaphysics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why is it not reasonable?

I already explained it multiple times.

It is not reasonable to believe things that are not in evidence, by definition of the word "reasonable". Not by anyone's mere opinion.

Who deside what is reasonable for a faith believer?

If a belief is reasonable or not does not depend on who's holding the beliefs. Or what the beliefs are, for that matter.

The reasonableness of a belief is determined by the available evidence that justifies it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I already explained it multiple times.

It is not reasonable to believe things that are not in evidence, by definition of the word "reasonable". Not by anyone's mere opinion.



If a belief is reasonable or not does not depend on who's holding the beliefs. Or what the beliefs are, for that matter.

The reasonableness of a belief is determined by the available evidence that justifies it.

So you judge others because what they do and believe is not reasonable to you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Believing the Bible to be true is as reasonable on faith as believing it is not true on faith.

1. those are two different claims

2. neither is an answer to what the evidence is that supports it

True. Faith is what bridges the gap between what we know and what we don't know.

Which is not reasonable.
Reasonable is when evidence bridges that gap.
In fact, faith doesn't bridge that gap at all. Invoking faith is not going to magically transform the unknown in the known. At best, it turns the unknown into the "believed". And that belief will very likely be incorrect. Because faith is not a reliable pathway to truth.

We reach the end of what evidence can say and we make the leap of faith to "I believe"

And if you do that, right out the gates you make a monumental argument from ignorance.

And of course it might be presumptuous to say that the leap of faith for an atheist is actually a leap of faith. The atheist might not be able to leap that far and so remains in a non believing place.

Which is the default place. And a reasonable place to be, when the claims presented have no supportive verifiable evidence.

Of course just what is seen as evidence for the Bible and what is seen as evidence against the Bible is also a matter of faith on both sides.

I challenge you to name something that I consider evidence against a biblical claim where I have to invoke "faith" to consider it as such.

I won't be holding my breath.

Faith is not reliable when it comes to science but religious belief is not science

Faith is never reliable. Not just when it comes to "science".
When the goal is to find out what is actually true, to distinguish fact from fantasy... faith is not a reliable way to do that. Ever.

and science is no way when it comes to religious belief, except a way to think you are playing it safe by believing nothing instead of making the faith leap.

It has nothing to do with "playing it safe" and everything with not being gullible and / or rational reasoning.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Faith is never reliable..

If you want to translate "faith" as in "any old creed that a person happens to be born with", you might be right.
However, you cannot say that belief in God is unfounded.
A person's "faith" [as in creed], could well be correct.

You saying it's the same as believing in fairies is nonsense !

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you judge others because what they do and believe is not reasonable to you.

Ow dear, how many times must it be repeated.

It's not about "me". It's about what the word "reasonable" means.
There's no judging either. Unless you think facts are judgemental.


To believe something for which there is no verifiable evidence, is unreasonable.
To believe something which IS supported by verifiable evidence, is reasonable.

Which part do you disagree with?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you want to translate "faith" as in "any old creed that a person happens to be born with", you might be right.

Why did you leave out the sentence that followed the small part you decided to quote?
Because there, I explain EXACTLY what I mean by "faith".

So I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this comment.

However, you cannot say that belief in God is unfounded.

Sure I can.
I would ask for the evidence that justifies this belief and I will get a whole bunch of stuff, none of which would be actual reliable evidence.

That makes the belief unfounded.

A person's "faith" [as in creed], could well be correct.

Sure. As the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Yet a broken clock is still unreliable to tell the time.

You saying it's the same as believing in fairies is nonsense !

It is the exact same.
The irony is that many times, theists will instantly recognize it as such when it comes to religions they do NOT follow.

The other day I had an ironic conversation with what turned out to be a fundamentalist christian, a creationist.
The conversation was actually about scientology. At that point I didn't even know he was a fundie christian. He was completely reasonable when it came to scientology. Instantly recognizing the hocus pocus factor of being "cleared" and Tom Cruise's status of "Operating Thetan". In fact, he almost word for word said that it's "like believing in fairies".

Imagine my surprise, and lolz, when later in the conversation he started yapping about Noah's Ark and the global flood some 4000 years ago.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Ow dear, how many times must it be repeated.

It's not about "me". It's about what the word "reasonable" means.
There's no judging either. Unless you think facts are judgemental.


To believe something for which there is no verifiable evidence, is unreasonable.
To believe something which IS supported by verifiable evidence, is reasonable.

Which part do you disagree with?

The part where you say faith is not reasonable because you can not find proof of it. Faith is 100% reliable to me