"Faith" and "Faith"

[Billy_Kinetta]

Don't be silly. It was free legal advice.

Was I looking for "free legal advice", or did I propose a question of reason to discuss for better understanding. If you don't have any thoughts on the question just fuck off. There is no reason to just be a dick. My OP was not rude. It was not condescending. It was a valid question in search of honest discussion.

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

So, it is your contention that faith is faith is faith?

100%. You have faith that God doesn't exist. I don't have that much faith.

‘God’ exists as a creation of man, a contrivance of faith and religion – it exists as does any another man-created philosophy, doctrine, or belief.

But there is no extraterrestrial omnipotent deity that hears prayers, intercedes on behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be believed lest transgressors suffer eternal damnation – that ‘god’ doesn’t exist, and acknowledging that fact requires no ‘faith.’

You are confusing faith and religion.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Your use is mistaken, poetic at best. Something that can be proven by conventional means does not result in faith, but trust based upon proven fact.

Faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven by conventional means.

Okay. Lemme try another example. I have faith that science will, eventually, discover how he universe came into being without resorting to "God did it". This faith is based on historical evidence demonstrating that throughout history, the religious explanation for every phenomenon has, ultimately been replaced with a scientific one that does not require a supernatural cause.

So. Is this "faith" the same as that of EXAMPLE 2?

That's better than the first one.

The thing is an empiricist would not say they have faith in future scientific discovery.

I don't know if we will ever unravel the origin of the universe. Quite frankly I think we might be incapable of doing so much like my dog is incapable of understanding basic fractions and she is also unaware that she can't understand fractions. We very well may be physically incapable of understanding the origin of the universe and just as oblivious about what we don't understand as my dog.

 

[Anathema]

So, when one says "I have faith that science will, one day, solve the riddle of the formation of our universe,", as that faith is based on on historical precedent, it would not be fair to suggest that it is no different than "I have faith in God," correct?

First off, please stop the double negative bologna. That's a means to trick people who don't read well enough.

You are wrong. They are very different things. The Faith of religion does not need, nor does it seek physical confirmation. The Word of God is sufficient for the Faithful. The Scientific Faith still seeks confirmation, and if it cannot be found, that Faith decreases. Big difference.

 

[Czernobog]

So, when one says "I have faith that science will, one day, solve the riddle of the formation of our universe,", as that faith is based on on historical precedent, it would not be fair to suggest that it is no different than "I have faith in God," correct?

First off, please stop the double negative bologna. That's a means to trick people who don't read well enough.

You are wrong. They are very different things. The Faith of religion does not need, nor does it seek physical confirmation. The Word of God is sufficient for the Faithful. The Scientific Faith still seeks confirmation, and if it cannot be found, that Faith decreases. Big difference.

So, you would agree that to attempt to justify one's theistic position by levelling the charge, "Well, you have faith in science!" would be an unreasonable, and meaningless response, yes?

 

[Anathema]

So, you would agree that to attempt to justify one's theistic position by levelling the charge, "Well, you have faith in science!" would be an unreasonable, and meaningless response, yes?

Yes and No.

There are many Scientific Theories (not Laws) which people like to promote. In reference to those things there is little difference between Religious Faith and Scientific Faith.

When it comes to things like Gravity and other verifiable issues, you would be correct that Faith is not an appropriate term.

 

[Czernobog]

So, you would agree that to attempt to justify one's theistic position by levelling the charge, "Well, you have faith in science!" would be an unreasonable, and meaningless response, yes?

Yes and No.

There are many Scientific Theories (not Laws) which people like to promote. In reference to those things there is little difference between Religious Faith and Scientific Faith

Isn't there, though? Before a hypothesis survives to become a theory, it has gone through rigorous study, experimentation, and peer-reviewed verification. It's not as if scientists just pull these theories out of their asses, throw them against a wall, and hope they stick. So, when one promotes a scientific theory, they are supporting a concept that has gone through a great deal of scrutiny before ever being accepted by the consensus as a legitimate theory.

When it comes to things like Gravity and other verifiable issues, you would be correct that Faith is not an appropriate term.

Knowing all of the research, and peer reviewed verification that any scientific theory goes through, would that not be true of any scientific theory?

Incidentally, this might be a good time to clarify the term "peer reviewed". Whenever a scientist uses that term, they are referring to a hypothesis, or theory being published, and the results reviewed, and confirmed by peers in the scientific community, preferably in the same, or a similar field.

So, when pseudoscientists such as those who work for Ken Ham claim their work has been "peer reviewed", and further investigation discloses that what they meant by "peer" was other creationists, theologians, and religious leaders, it doesn't really carry the same weight as theories that have been reviewed by other actual scientists.

 

[ding]

The OP first and foremost was to criticize theist's hypocrisy.

No it wasn't. If you don't understand the purpose of a discussion, rather than just wasting time with meaningless deflect, you should try asking for clarification, instead. I specifically said that it is the theists that are accusing atheists of hypocrisy. The purpose of the OP was first, and foremost, was to explore if theists, and atheists have the same understanding of the use of the word "faith".

Read the first sentence.

You mean the topic of the discussion? Do better. You are dismissed.

No. The first sentence.

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own.

That would be the topic of discussion to which you are apparently ill-equipped to discuss. You. Are. dismissed.

Which starts as a strawman, which I addressed and then I addressed the OP which was faith but not the way you wanted to discuss it.

 

[ding]

Don't be silly. It was free legal advice.

Was I looking for "free legal advice", or did I propose a question of reason to discuss for better understanding. If you don't have any thoughts on the question just fuck off. There is no reason to just be a dick. My OP was not rude. It was not condescending. It was a valid question in search of honest discussion.

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

So, it is your contention that faith is faith is faith?

100%. You have faith that God doesn't exist. I don't have that much faith.

‘God’ exists as a creation of man, a contrivance of faith and religion – it exists as does any another man-created philosophy, doctrine, or belief.

But there is no extraterrestrial omnipotent deity that hears prayers, intercedes on behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be believed lest transgressors suffer eternal damnation – that ‘god’ doesn’t exist, and acknowledging that fact requires no ‘faith.’

You would be taking that on faith. I don't have that much faith.

 

[Czernobog]

No it wasn't. If you don't understand the purpose of a discussion, rather than just wasting time with meaningless deflect, you should try asking for clarification, instead. I specifically said that it is the theists that are accusing atheists of hypocrisy. The purpose of the OP was first, and foremost, was to explore if theists, and atheists have the same understanding of the use of the word "faith".

Read the first sentence.

You mean the topic of the discussion? Do better. You are dismissed.

No. The first sentence.

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own.

That would be the topic of discussion to which you are apparently ill-equipped to discuss. You. Are. dismissed.

Which starts as a strawman, which I addressed and then I addressed the OP which was faith but not the way you wanted to discuss it.

Still demonstrating that you do not understand the concept of a Strawman fallacy. Unless you are saying that theists don't call atheists hypocrites for criticising theists' faith, while asserting a faith of their own. Is that what you are asserting is a "Strawman"? Because if that is what you are asserting, I will be happy to post quotes for you, from this very forum of theists do just that.

 

[Czernobog]

Was I looking for "free legal advice", or did I propose a question of reason to discuss for better understanding. If you don't have any thoughts on the question just fuck off. There is no reason to just be a dick. My OP was not rude. It was not condescending. It was a valid question in search of honest discussion.

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

So, it is your contention that faith is faith is faith?

100%. You have faith that God doesn't exist. I don't have that much faith.

‘God’ exists as a creation of man, a contrivance of faith and religion – it exists as does any another man-created philosophy, doctrine, or belief.

But there is no extraterrestrial omnipotent deity that hears prayers, intercedes on behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be believed lest transgressors suffer eternal damnation – that ‘god’ doesn’t exist, and acknowledging that fact requires no ‘faith.’

You would be taking that on faith. I don't have that much faith.

Actually he's not. You see, Clayton is asserting a premise. This is demonstrated by the fact that Clayton, and every other atheist ever, follows that assertion with a very simple challenge. Feel free to falsify this premise with objective, verifiable evidence. That evidence is still not forthcoming. So, he continues to assert his premise; his null hypothesis.

The only one acting on faith is you. You assert a conclusion that not only God exists, but that the Christian Biblical God is the exactly correct version of God that exists, with not a single shred of objective, verifiable evidence. That is religious faith.

 

[ding]

Read the first sentence.

You mean the topic of the discussion? Do better. You are dismissed.

No. The first sentence.

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own.

That would be the topic of discussion to which you are apparently ill-equipped to discuss. You. Are. dismissed.

Which starts as a strawman, which I addressed and then I addressed the OP which was faith but not the way you wanted to discuss it.

Still demonstrating that you do not understand the concept of a Strawman fallacy. Unless you are saying that theists don't call atheists hypocrites for criticising theists' faith, while asserting a faith of their own. Is that what you are asserting is a "Strawman"? Because if that is what you are asserting, I will be happy to post quotes for you, from this very forum of theists do just that.

That's exactly what I am saying, Czernobog. We criticize your criticism of our beliefs. You are the one who has turned that into your logical fallacy strawman that we criticize your faith.

How many times do I have to tell you that I believe that you have faith that God does not exist. See? Right there I have just proven your OP wrong. I am not criticizing your faith that God doesn't exist. I am acknowledging your faith that God does not exist.

 

[ding]

No. It wasn't. Like every OP you have ever made, this is nothing more than one of your strawmen arguments.

I don't criticize you for having faith. I criticize you criticizing my beliefs.

That's it.

So, it is your contention that faith is faith is faith?

100%. You have faith that God doesn't exist. I don't have that much faith.

‘God’ exists as a creation of man, a contrivance of faith and religion – it exists as does any another man-created philosophy, doctrine, or belief.

But there is no extraterrestrial omnipotent deity that hears prayers, intercedes on behalf of mortals, and issues edicts of religious dogma that must be believed lest transgressors suffer eternal damnation – that ‘god’ doesn’t exist, and acknowledging that fact requires no ‘faith.’

You would be taking that on faith. I don't have that much faith.

Actually he's not. You see, Clayton is asserting a premise. This is demonstrated by the fact that Clayton, and every other atheist ever, follows that assertion with a very simple challenge. Feel free to falsify this premise with objective, verifiable evidence. That evidence is still not forthcoming. So, he continues to assert his premise; his null hypothesis.

The only one acting on faith is you. You assert a conclusion that not only God exists, but that the Christian Biblical God is the exactly correct version of God that exists, with not a single shred of objective, verifiable evidence. That is religious faith.

Now you are the one who is criticizing your faith.

 

[Meriweather]

How many times do I have to tell you that I believe that you have faith that God does not exist. See? Right there I have just proven your OP wrong. I am not criticizing your faith that God doesn't exist. I am acknowledging your faith that God does not exist.

In addressing the faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, that the scientific method will continue to uncover many secrets of the universe, or that gravity will always work the same way, we ask why this is so. And, the reason it is so is because any variables likely to change the status quo don't come into play.

Life comes with variables. When bad times come (and they will) our faith in the sun, gravity, and science exploration never wavers--and not one of these three can help us through personal loss, how to love more, or become the best version of ourselves. Faith not only in God, but in His ways, and His laws, helps us through the variables and into the most fulfilling life possible. Faith in gravity can't help me life a more fulfilling life. Scientists uncovering secrets will not help me solve personal problems. Not even the sun rising each morning can overcome mourning.

Without faith in God and His ways, my life would have been a different story. For each of us, our own story with all its variables, should be of greater value than our own personal understanding of science.

 

[ding]

How many times do I have to tell you that I believe that you have faith that God does not exist. See? Right there I have just proven your OP wrong. I am not criticizing your faith that God doesn't exist. I am acknowledging your faith that God does not exist.

In addressing the faith that the sun will come up tomorrow, that the scientific method will continue to uncover many secrets of the universe, or that gravity will always work the same way, we ask why this is so. And, the reason it is so is because any variables likely to change the status quo don't come into play.

Life comes with variables. When bad times come (and they will) our faith in the sun, gravity, and science exploration never wavers--and not one of these three can help us through personal loss, how to love more, or become the best version of ourselves. Faith not only in God, but in His ways, and His laws, helps us through the variables and into the most fulfilling life possible. Faith in gravity can't help me life a more fulfilling life. Scientists uncovering secrets will not help me solve personal problems. Not even the sun rising each morning can overcome mourning.

Without faith in God and His ways, my life would have been a different story. For each of us, our own story with all its variables, should be of greater value than our own personal understanding of science.

We are not promised no storms only peace through the storm.

 

[featherlite]

No, they're not identical. True Faith is the acceptance of an idea or belief WITHOUT PROOF. Almost everyone accepts the idea that when a ball is released in open space it will fall to the ground. We can verify it by experience. There is no faith there. Faith comes into play when one cannot provide verification through the senses but must instead use the Heart and Soul to accept the idea.

So, when one says "I have faith that science will, one day, solve the riddle of the formation of our universe,", as that faith is based on on historical precedent, it would not be fair to suggest that it is no different than "I have faith in God," correct?

Except Atheists have "faith" science will eventually supply us with facts about how the universe works.
Theists regard science as knowledge which explains some general truths about Gods creation.
Science is a useful tool, but not the answer to everything.

I would submit that neither is God. After all, in 6,000 years, not a single event, or phenomenon that theists insisted could be explained by God has been. It has always been explained by science. Why should we expect that to ever change?

...and that's where real faith comes in. You have faith science will always prove something to you. "we" have faith that can move mountains.

Okay. Ignoring the condescending tone, I'm still unclear if you see a contextual difference in the usage of the word "faith" as I demonstrated the atheist use, and the theist usage.

I wasnt trying to be condescending, it was the best way I could explain it.
Atheist have "faith" based on past scientific proof...is that what you are getting at?

 

[featherlite]

No, they're not identical. True Faith is the acceptance of an idea or belief WITHOUT PROOF. Almost everyone accepts the idea that when a ball is released in open space it will fall to the ground. We can verify it by experience. There is no faith there. Faith comes into play when one cannot provide verification through the senses but must instead use the Heart and Soul to accept the idea.

So, when one says "I have faith that science will, one day, solve the riddle of the formation of our universe,", as that faith is based on on historical precedent, it would not be fair to suggest that it is no different than "I have faith in God," correct?

Except Atheists have "faith" science will eventually supply us with facts about how the universe works.
Theists regard science as knowledge which explains some general truths about Gods creation.
Science is a useful tool, but not the answer to everything.

I would submit that neither is God. After all, in 6,000 years, not a single event, or phenomenon that theists insisted could be explained by God has been. It has always been explained by science. Why should we expect that to ever change?

...and that's where real faith comes in. You have faith science will always prove something to you. "we" have faith that can move mountains.

Wrong.

This is another lie propagated by most theists: that science is a ‘religion’ to those free from faith.

Im only responding to what the OP brought up. I never thought atheist considered science a religion. Although I know atheist ( both online and off) who kind of throw science up there to appear superior.
There are probably some who see it as sort of a replacement for God.

 

[Meriweather]

We are not promised no storms only peace through the storm.

Yes. I've also wondered if, along with peace, people of great faith also suffer less depression?

 

[Meriweather]

Im only responding to what the OP brought up. I never thought atheist considered science a religion. Although I know atheist ( both online and off) who kind of throw science up there to appear superior.
There are probably some who see it as sort of a replacement for God.

There seems to be a section of people who feel one must choose either religion or science. A well rounded person can be devoted to both. I wasn't thinking it so much a replacement for God, but rather an excuse not to purse faith. However, we should keep in mind atheists will not fit into a few convenient subsets, any more than people who choose to seek God do so for only one or two reasons.

 

[ding]

We are not promised no storms only peace through the storm.

Yes. I've also wondered if, along with peace, people of great faith also suffer less depression?

No need to wonder. There is plenty of evidence to say they do.

You ever notice that there are 14 people in the boat in Rembrandt's painting of Christ in the Storm?"

 

[RodISHI]

Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticising their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own. The question is, are the two using the word in the same manner. Consider the following:

EXAMPLE 1:

Because of repeated observed, and peer reviewed verification, Derek has faith that when he drops a ball from the roof of his apartment building, that it is going to drop to the ground.

EXAMPLE 2:

Because of the passages found in (fill in the holy book of your choice), and a personal experience that he cannot submit for peer review, Jesse has faith that there is a creator, and he dedicates his life to this creator.


Are these two decisions of faith identical? If so, why? What makes them the same, other than the fact that they both use the word faith? If not, why not? What is the difference?

The spirit manifesting for those who have spiritual eyes to see and ears to hear is the difference. As an atheist you depend on scientific test and theories. A believer on the other hand has faith that ultimately the spirit will show them and lead them down the correct paths for their lives and assist them in their daily trials and tribulations to help them overcome the things that are not conducive for a child of God's spirit to grow and prosper. In time many believers have seen the spirit manifest. That does not happen at the same time for all so by faith believers hope generally in that which has not yet been seen by them.