On Faith, Doubt, Certainty, and Uncertainty {poll added}

[McBell]

No they do not. They infer that X is evidence based on faith foremost, nothing more than this.

Yes they do.
Your denial of it does not make it go away.

I challenge their identification of evidence.

I suspect that you have a higher standard for evidence than the evidence presented for god.
That does not make the evidence presented for god not evidence.

Besides by your argument the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, etc are all evidence of God rather than claims about God.

If the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, etc convince some one that god exists, then they are in fact, by definition of the word evidence, evidence.

 

[Onyx]

I voted for "doubt", as I am too much of a realist to accept the concept of faith myself, although I fully respect those that do.

I've read a good deal of the Bible. However, I "doubt" very much of it is factual. Jehovah possesses many human qualities: love, hate, revenge, charity, guilt. Therefore I tend to think that man created God in his own image, and not the other way around.

Can anything be known for sure? Of course not. But I'd rather pursue my own self-interests while I can, instead of betting the farm on a roll of the dice.

 

[Thanda]

You missed the point. The thing which you trust in, the person, exists. You can introduce me to this person or I can end up meeting this person before you point out that the person in question is one you trust. You can not point me to God and say "There is the God I trust"

Sure - and how is this relevant in terms of trust?

 

[Quintessence]

I'm curious what the philosophy was behind the poll, @crossfire. Apologies if you stated it upstream in the thread, as I've not been ardently watching this one.

I put apathetic, because I cannot answer the question without a subject. That is to say, I find neither faith nor doubt meaningful without a context, or without a subject that is being doubted or trusted in. Doubting oneself, for example, is a recipe for inaction, poor self-esteem, and depression. Doubting one's decision to be a smoker, on the other hand...

 

[crossfire]

I'm curious what the philosophy was behind the poll, @crossfire. Apologies if you stated it upstream in the thread, as I've not been ardently watching this one.

I put apathetic, because I cannot answer the question without a subject. That is to say, I find neither faith nor doubt meaningful without a context, or without a subject that is being doubted or trusted in. Doubting oneself, for example, is a recipe for inaction, poor self-esteem, and depression. Doubting one's decision to be a smoker, on the other hand...

Actually, I was interested in seeing the percentages of "True Believers," (like Faith, dislike Doubt,) "Debunkers," (dislike Faith, like Doubt) "Skeptics," (like both Faith and Doubt,) "Curmudgeons," (Dislike both Faith and Doubt, {and just about everything else } ,) and contextual relativists, like you. Just a bit (albeit statistically insignificant) of empiricism for handy reference to get an overall feeling regarding the types of people participating in this thread.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Okay, I took the survey. Not too surprisingly, perhaps, I also voted apathetic. I just don't see it as a relevant question even with a specific subject, necessarily.

 

[crossfire]

Okay, I took the survey. Not too surprisingly, perhaps, I also voted apathetic. I just don't see it as a relevant question even with a specific subject, necessarily.

It's surprising how many people don't require a specific context.

{My excuse is that I like to question and investigate just about anything.}

 

[paarsurrey]

Excuse me? I regard myself as a skeptic, and I have already stated in this thread that I love both Faith and Doubt.
I go after Truth, not Victory. In light of this above quoted assertion, can you honestly say the same about yourself?

Well, I am a Muslims and I also love both Faith, where faith is essential, and love Doubt where doubt is essential. Each have a proper occasion and time to do,nevertheless, I don't have to be a Skeptic. I also don't go after Victory, I go after Truth.
Is it the same as you said? please.
Regards

 

[Quintessence]

It's surprising how many people don't require a specific context.

{My excuse is that I like to question and investigate just about anything.}

It may be they didn't think about it when answering the poll, or were assuming that, since this is a discussion on a religion discussion forum, it was faith/doubt with respect to accepting or rejecting things like god(s), scriptures, etc.

 

[paarsurrey]

Nope as my worldview is grounded in what we do know rather than a belief that has grounding in superstition

 

[paarsurrey]

Nope as my worldview is grounded in what we do know rather than a belief that has grounding in superstition

How do you know that what you claim to know is truthful? Please
Regards

 

[crossfire]

It may be they didn't think about it when answering the poll, or were assuming that, since this is a discussion on a religion discussion forum, it was faith/doubt with respect to accepting or rejecting things like god(s), scriptures, etc.

Quite possible. The OP was regarding Certainty and Uncertainty, and Faith and Doubt. I didn't mention religion in it.

 

[crossfire]

Well, I am a Muslims and I also love both Faith, where faith is essential, and love Doubt where doubt is essential. Each have a proper occasion and time to do,nevertheless, I don't have to be a Skeptic. I also don't go after Victory, I go after Truth.
Is it the same as you said? please.
Regards

Then why did you make the assertion broad brushing Atheists, Agnostics, and Skeptics as accepting without evidence and "it is all fanciful if not whimsical?" Where is your evidence which you assert is necessary to not be categorized as "it is all fanciful if not whimsical?"

 

[paarsurrey]

Why are you guys so focused on atheists, a small minority, when the majority of believers in God do not buy your own version of God for a second?
This is valid, of course, for any God you might believe in.
Ciao
- viole

Atheists are also a part of the humanity, so there is nothing wrong in having focus on them. I never maintain that all and every believer cannot be wrong.
There are two aspects to the issue. One is within the believers, the others is outside the belief, as the nature of the issue changes as to who is being addressed.
Regards

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

It's surprising how many people don't require a specific context.

{My excuse is that I like to question and investigate just about anything.}

I am a philosophical skeptic (apparently a rare thing, at least on RF)--I doubt human ability to know with certainty ANYTHING...therefore, nothing is certain, everything we think we know should be doubted, as individuals and as a society. EVERYTHING we believe is a matter of "faith" or "belief," no matter how much "proof" or "evidence" is collected and explained through our conceptual models.

 

[Shad]

How do you know that what you claim to know is truthful? Please
Regards

1. Evidence
2. Supportive arguments.

 

[Shad]

Yes they do.
Your denial of it does not make it go away.

What is their evidence? You said they had evidence so lets hear some examples.

I suspect that you have a higher standard for evidence than the evidence presented for god.

No I treat evidence as what the word means not merely attach emotions, intuition and indoctrination as if these were evidence of god

That does not make the evidence presented for god not evidence.

It certainly does as people misuse the word evidence when they really only have faith.

If the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, etc convince some one that god exists, then they are in fact, by definition of the word evidence, evidence.

Wrong. Just because someone is convinced by the book does not mean it is evidence. Just as snake oil is not evidence medical cures because someone gullible enough to buy it. You place gullibility and conviction as if these make something evidence or not. If you belief the knife was used to kill Bob it was the knife that killed Bob, too bad Bob was killed by a baseball bat.

 

[Shad]

Sure - and how is this relevant in terms of trust?

The subject of your trust exists outside your personal subjective views.

 

[McBell]

No I treat evidence as what the word means not merely attach emotions, intuition and indoctrination as if these were evidence of god

evidence
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; grounds for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Source

Wrong. Just because someone is convinced by the book does not mean it is evidence. Just as snake oil is not evidence medical cures because someone gullible enough to buy it. You place gullibility and conviction as if these make something evidence or not. If you belief the knife was used to kill Bob it was the knife that killed Bob, too bad Bob was killed by a baseball bat.

So you don't actually "treat evidence as what the word means"...

ouch

 

[Shad]

evidence
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; grounds for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Guess you never head of false evidence, misinformation or unjustified beliefs. By your claim people that believe in hoax of giant bones is actually evidence of giants rather than a failure in their thinking or accepting hoaxes as evidence.

So you don't actually "treat evidence as what the word means"...

I do. You just attach the word to anything people claims as if it were actually evidence. Do note your own definition include the parameter of proof. No religious text is held as a proof outside those that already accept their presuppositional claims. Thus is completely subjective, subjective evidence is an opinion not evidence. Neither do the text make plain and clear their claims are factual. Seems like you can read but are unable to apply comprehension and application to what you have read.

What is more odd is based on what you have posted over time you are an atheist but accept all these claims as evidence of God. However if you are an atheist, correct me if I am wrong on your stance, then either you are playing words games or are inconsistent in your views. If X is evidence of God than you have undermined your own stance, if true.