Why is faith considered a virtue rather than the curse it really is?

[Quagmire]

I suppose your correct.... there is a presumption of knowing Gods obligations. Many of us presume an all loving, all caring, all powerful God is an all loving, all caring and all powerful being, and should act the part. Perhaps you’re right... perhaps on bad days His only obligation is to amuse Himself by playing with us ants and slugs (using his magnifying glass and salt sprinkler).


Before you argue we are responsible for hunger, let me direct your response to earthquakes, floods, droughts, etc.?

I'll refer you to my sig.

 

[logician]

Anything made in our image is cursed.

 

[Charity]

Anything made in our image is cursed.

Danged Mirror......

 

[footprints]

Don't make the mistake of judging all non-believers on the basis of those who tend to hang out in religious debate forms. We're the worst of the lot.

One of the problems with arguments over "faith" is that the meaning of the word shifts between "trust", "belief in a religious doctrine", "belief without evidence", "belief in a god", and a few other senses. And then there are always those who feel compelled to argue that atheism is a type of religious "faith", which just confuses the issue further. In the end, there is the interesting question of whether or not religious faith is a good thing or a bad thing for our kind of being. I tend to agree more with Dawkins and other of the so-called "new atheists" on this subject--that it is ultimately not a good thing. But, to be honest, I have conflicting opinions about that. The fact that it is so ubiquitous suggests that it has worked out advantageously on some level for us. I'm just not so sure that it is a healthy thing to have a strong fanatical movement of any kind, be it religious or political, in a crowded world that possesses weapons of mass destruction.

That is totally perception based in the negative context as it pertains to "belief without evidence." The majority of theists have their evidence, some people just do not believe it or accept it.

I agree with you pertaining to strong fanatical movements, You would think Dawkins and Co, above all, would also see this, and stop his evangelism styled crusades.

 

[Copernicus]

That is totally perception based in the negative context as it pertains to "belief without evidence." The majority of theists have their evidence, some people just do not believe it or accept it.

Most debates between theists and non-theists are about what counts as evidence.

I agree with you pertaining to strong fanatical movements, You would think Dawkins and Co, above all, would also see this, and stop his evangelism styled crusades.

I can see it now. A group of atheists hijacks a plane and flies it into St. John's Cathedral to dramatize their crusade against "In God We Trust" on our money.

 

[footprints]

Most debates between theists and non-theists are about what counts as evidence.

That is correct, and both are just as valid.

I can see it now. A group of atheists hijacks a plane and flies it into St. John's Cathedral to dramatize their crusade against "In God We Trust" on our money.

Your one sided humour is wasted on me. It is rediculous, not even based in reality.

There are many ways to conduct a crusade. Writing a book is one way. Holding conferences to promote a belief pattern another.

Personally I would suggest if some people stop bombing and killing some other peoples families and friends, some other people would stop flying planes into buildings. Seems logical and rational to me. People who play with fire often get burned. it isn't nice for good, decent, people on either side for they are often the ones who pay the penality due to inane leaders.

 

[John D]

Haitians everywhere united by faith
Haitians everywhere united by faith - CNN.com

 

[emiliano]

That is correct, and both are just as valid.
.

I concluded that this fellow has a revenge on what once believed and this is aggravated by the fact that there are Christians that believe that is their sacred duty to prove “Faith” that every body has the capacity to understand spiritual things, but truth is that only the Holy spirit and God’s mercy can do this, no evidence of God’s presence in a Christian faith? At times I mock them by saying that they also expect frogs turne into princes in some billion years and that they kiss them now then to bring this forward, it is all a stragety.

 

[MSizer]

Haitians everywhere united by faith
Haitians everywhere united by faith - CNN.com

That is no surprise at all. Chrisitianity rose in New Orleans after the hurricane. It's not any evidence for the truth value of Belief, but it is evidence that Belief is beneficial in certain circumstances.

 

[Skeptisch]

Most debates between theists and non-theists are about what counts as evidence.

Many great minds have asked for a single piece of evidence for the existence of a supernatural god? They came to the conclusion that there is no supernatural God.

• Douglas Adams, novelist
• Woody Allen, film director, actor, comedian
• Isaac Asimov, author and scientist
• Iain Banks, novelist
• John Baskerville, printer and typefounder
• Charles Bradlaugh, British Member of Parliament
• Nathaniel Branden, psychologist and philosopher, associated with Objectivism.
• George Gordon, Lord Byron; Romantic poet
• George Carlin - comedian. Wrote a number of monologues about the non-existence of a God.
• Noam Chomsky, philosopher, linguist, political activist.
• Clarence Darrow Defense attorney at the Scopes Monkey Trial. Was largely demonized in the press for his atheism.
• Richard Dawkins - biologist and science writer.
• Daniel Dennett - philosopher, well-known for his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
• Diagoras.
• Thomas Edison.
• Paul Ehrlich - entomologist.
• Ludwig Feuerbach, philosopher, postulated that God is merely a projection by humans of their own best qualities.
• Richard Feynman, physicist.
• Sigmund Freud - neurologist. Father of psychoanalysis; considered the belief in God to stem from an unconscious fear of one's own biological father.
• Stephen Hawking - one of the world's leading theoretical physicists.
• Christopher Hitchens - political commentator and author
• David Hume - Scottish Philosopher and major skeptic of The Enlightenment period.

The fact that there is no similar list of great minds worshiping a supernatural deity should make any reasonable and educated mind wonder!
The above list is three times longer than posted. http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Celebrity_atheists/

 

[Charity]

With all due respect to the list, wonder if God has the same list on His computer?
Or maybe God's hit list, take them out first, You know the scripture the first shall be last and the last shall be first.....

Have a good day, couldn't resist the humor

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Faith, like most other things, can be either a "virtue" or a "curse" depending on how you use it. It is simply a tool. A hammer can be used to build a house, or crack a skull. Of course, some people are more suited to some tools than others.

As far as belief in evolution goes, most people don't "believe" in it, because, from their point of view, it's simply not applicable to them. It's simply irrelevant to their worldview - whether it's true or not. Many people don't base their beliefs on whether something is true or not, only whether it fits with their perspective.

 

[Charity]

Faith, like most other things, can be either a "virtue" or a "curse" depending on how you use it. It is simply a tool. A hammer can be used to build a house, or crack a skull. Of course, some people are more suited to some tools than others.

As far as belief in evolution goes, most people don't "believe" in it, because, from their point of view, it's simply not applicable to them. It's simply irrelevant to their worldview - whether it's true or not. Many people don't base their beliefs on whether something is true or not, only whether it fits with their perspective.

I believe that most people have faith whether they use it or not is up to them. Faith means a lot to the Christians, but their is faith outside of the religious realm. Faith that you will make something out of your life, faith that your spouse or significant other can be counted on for support. Faith is a virtue unless you want to live your life in the negative and think nothing is ever going to work out....

 

[Copernicus]

That is correct, and both are just as valid.

I use a different standard of evaluation than you do. I like to examine the argument first before arriving at a conclusion of validity.

Your one sided humour is wasted on me. It is rediculous, not even based in reality.

I was playing for the peanut gallery. Sorry.

There are many ways to conduct a crusade. Writing a book is one way. Holding conferences to promote a belief pattern another.

Metaphorically speaking, that is true. These methods of conducting a crusade are actually desirable. The public commons should be a marketplace of ideas.

Personally I would suggest if some people stop bombing and killing some other peoples families and friends, some other people would stop flying planes into buildings. Seems logical and rational to me. People who play with fire often get burned. it isn't nice for good, decent, people on either side for they are often the ones who pay the penality due to inane leaders.

You are missing the point of the danger posed by religious fanaticism. We live in an age where our weapons are capable of bringing down civilization and possibly destroying our entire species. Fanatical religious belief, especially when it promotes delusional beliefs about the end of the world and heavenly rewards in an afterlife, can produce everything from suicide bombers to mass killing events. Now that nuclear weapons are spreading to countries with powerful groups of fanatics, we are entering an especially dangerous time for our species.

 

[Thief]

You are missing the point of the danger posed by religious fanaticism. We live in an age where our weapons are capable of bringing down civilization and possibly destroying our entire species. Fanatical religious belief, especially when it promotes delusional beliefs about the end of the world and heavenly rewards in an afterlife, can produce everything from suicide bombers to mass killing events. Now that nuclear weapons are spreading to countries with powerful groups of fanatics, we are entering an especially dangerous time for our species.

How strange I should agree with you!

But I don't believe in the after life for the sake of reward.
I believe it is the result of a transformation.
If you are able...you will.

As for the fanatics....here in this life they are a problem....a dangerous problem.
But heaven is a place of peace.
The angels carry swords.
Shall They draw a line in the sand, at your feet?
Or put away the blade?
Peace first.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Many people don't base their beliefs on whether something is true or not, only whether it fits with their perspective.

Can I steal this as my sig?

 

[Skeptisch]

As far as belief in evolution goes, most people don't "believe" in it, because, from their point of view, it's simply not applicable to them. It's simply irrelevant to their worldview - whether it's true or not. Many people don't base their beliefs on whether something is true or not, only whether it fits with their perspective.

That is the sad truth. There is however a truth we should all be able to accept. The only problem is, we have to have time, courage and will power to be interested in that truth, the scientific truth. Listening to some knowledge pretender on weekends is much easier, and it has the added bonus of the promise of an afterlife.

On another thread atotalstranger asked about Replacing/Removing God/Religion
There are indications that God and religion will indeed be replaced and it will be by science and the scientific truth. It may take a long time for the emergence of a science based spirituality that replaces today's supernatural, faith base beliefs.

But for humanity to flourish it will have to happen.

 

[footprints]

I concluded that this fellow has a revenge on what once believed and this is aggravated by the fact that there are Christians that believe that is their sacred duty to prove “Faith” that every body has the capacity to understand spiritual things, but truth is that only the Holy spirit and God’s mercy can do this, no evidence of God’s presence in a Christian faith? At times I mock them by saying that they also expect frogs turne into princes in some billion years and that they kiss them now then to bring this forward, it is all a stragety.

Hi emiliano,

We live in a world where many perceptions abound to the same thing. Evidence for and against can go either way.

It is wrong when atheists, non-theist et al mock theists pertaining to their beliefs, it is equally wrong to mock the atheist, non-theist pertaining to their beliefs.

 

[footprints]

I use a different standard of evaluation than you do. I like to examine the argument first before arriving at a conclusion of validity.

The debate is so old, evaluation was completed long ago. Non-Theists beliefs want to use their evidence, and theists want to use their evidence, and both will argue over which evidence has the higher authority. In simple terms, stubborn idiots.

Metaphorically speaking, that is true. These methods of conducting a crusade are actually desirable. The public commons should be a marketplace of ideas.

The problem with words, they are combated by words. Words then get heated. Words turn to blows. Blows turn to battles. Battles turn to war.

Words just give extremists a right to war.

You are missing the point of the danger posed by religious fanaticism. We live in an age where our weapons are capable of bringing down civilization and possibly destroying our entire species. Fanatical religious belief, especially when it promotes delusional beliefs about the end of the world and heavenly rewards in an afterlife, can produce everything from suicide bombers to mass killing events. Now that nuclear weapons are spreading to countries with powerful groups of fanatics, we are entering an especially dangerous time for our species.

Any fanaticism poses a danger, be this religious, atheism, political beliefs, personal aspiration, et al.

We wouldn't be in the position of the threat of a neuclear war, if some country hadn't developed them and used them as a threat against other nations, to the extent that other nations had to get them just to protect themselves.

The USA is without a doubt the most fanatical country on the planet. Perhaps Obama can turn this around and change the worlds perception. He certainly is speaking the right words to correct the initial mistake by the USA.

 

[Copernicus]

The debate is so old, evaluation was completed long ago. Non-Theists beliefs want to use their evidence, and theists want to use their evidence, and both will argue over which evidence has the higher authority. In simple terms, stubborn idiots.

In your perception, the arguments are settled. In mine, they are always worth a second look. That is really what critical thinking is all about. Scientists, the stubborn idiots, insist on checking results over and over again, even after a theory has been established as "scientific fact". You never know when there might be a fresh perspective or an unexpected result.

The problem with words, they are combated by words. Words then get heated. Words turn to blows. Blows turn to battles. Battles turn to war.

Words just give extremists a right to war.

This is an old argument, but worth a second look. Maybe censorship is the way to go, after all. :sarcastic

Any fanaticism poses a danger, be this religious, atheism, political beliefs, personal aspiration, et al.

A fanatic is a person who thinks that a settled argument should not be revisited by stubborn idiots who can't see the truth as they see it.

We wouldn't be in the position of the threat of a neuclear war, if some country hadn't developed them and used them as a threat against other nations, to the extent that other nations had to get them just to protect themselves.

True. Given the advance of science, nuclear weapons were inevitable. Luckily, the Nazis were defeated before they could perfect them, but even the US couldn't resist using them. What chance have we against religious fanatics with a deluded vision of God-inspired apocalypse?

The USA is without a doubt the most fanatical country on the planet. Perhaps Obama can turn this around and change the worlds perception. He certainly is speaking the right words to correct the initial mistake by the USA.

That's your perception. Mine is that your perception is highly delusional. BTW, I think that you've just blown whatever credibility you might have had with a lot of readers here, but I suspect you don't care.