"Faith" and "Faith"

[Czernobog]

But if you are upset that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own," sue them.

Non-sequitur ignored.

What makes example 2 identical to example 1?

Actually it isn't. You created a strawman that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own."

My response to your straw man is sue them.

It matches the snark of the OP perfectly. Are you going to criticize my use of snark when you yourself used snark first?

You apparently don't understand what a "Strawman" is. When a behaviour is noted as the Opening statement, it, by definition, is not a Strawman deflecting from the topic. It is the topic. Just deflecting from the topic by spewing misused terms is irrational, pathetic, and beneath you. I know you can do better, because I have seen you do better.

Do better. you are dismissed.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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?

No. That is a speculation based upon proven events that do not in themselves preclude the existence of God, but merely address the machinations of those events.

Faith cannot be disproved with science. If anything, advancing science actually bolsters faith due to its forwarding the expanding possibility of the impossible.

There is an un-caused first cause to the existence of existence itself. That's what faith is looking for.

 

[ding]

But if you are upset that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own," sue them.

Non-sequitur ignored.

What makes example 2 identical to example 1?

Actually it isn't. You created a strawman that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own."

My response to your straw man is sue them.

It matches the snark of the OP perfectly. Are you going to criticize my use of snark when you yourself used snark first?

You apparently don't understand what a "Strawman" is. When a behaviour is noted as the Opening statement, it, by definition, is not a Strawman deflecting from the topic. It is the topic. Just deflecting from the topic by spewing misused terms is irrational, pathetic, and beneath you. I know you can do better, because I have seen you do better.

Do better. you are dismissed.

I couldn't have explained it more clearly to you.

 

[Czernobog]

SCRIPTURAL DEFINITION
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
Derek saw and had faith.
Jesse saw not and had faith. It will garner a blessing.

Are you implying that the "faith" in both instances mean the same thing, or are they different?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

I said nothing about my position on the existence of God in my OP. How about we stick with the topic. How is example 2 the same as example 1?

Doesn't matter.

So, you're incapable of discussing the OP. Fair enough. You are dismissed.

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".

 

[ding]

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

I said nothing about my position on the existence of God in my OP. How about we stick with the topic. How is example 2 the same as example 1?

Doesn't matter.

So, you're incapable of discussing the OP. Fair enough. You are dismissed.

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.

 

[Czernobog]

But if you are upset that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own," sue them.

Non-sequitur ignored.

What makes example 2 identical to example 1?

Actually it isn't. You created a strawman that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own."

My response to your straw man is sue them.

It matches the snark of the OP perfectly. Are you going to criticize my use of snark when you yourself used snark first?

You apparently don't understand what a "Strawman" is. When a behaviour is noted as the Opening statement, it, by definition, is not a Strawman deflecting from the topic. It is the topic. Just deflecting from the topic by spewing misused terms is irrational, pathetic, and beneath you. I know you can do better, because I have seen you do better.

Do better. you are dismissed.

I couldn't have explained it more clearly to you.

Yeah. You explained it wrong. What you are calling a Strawman isn't a Strawman. Do better. You are dismissed.

 

[Czernobog]

I said nothing about my position on the existence of God in my OP. How about we stick with the topic. How is example 2 the same as example 1?

Doesn't matter.

So, you're incapable of discussing the OP. Fair enough. You are dismissed.

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.

 

[ding]

But if you are upset that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own," sue them.

Non-sequitur ignored.

What makes example 2 identical to example 1?

Actually it isn't. You created a strawman that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own."

My response to your straw man is sue them.

It matches the snark of the OP perfectly. Are you going to criticize my use of snark when you yourself used snark first?

You apparently don't understand what a "Strawman" is. When a behaviour is noted as the Opening statement, it, by definition, is not a Strawman deflecting from the topic. It is the topic. Just deflecting from the topic by spewing misused terms is irrational, pathetic, and beneath you. I know you can do better, because I have seen you do better.

Do better. you are dismissed.

I couldn't have explained it more clearly to you.

Yeah. You explained it wrong. What you are calling a Strawman isn't a Strawman. Do better. You are dismissed.

You telling me to do better is hysterical.

 

[ding]

Doesn't matter.

So, you're incapable of discussing the OP. Fair enough. You are dismissed.

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.

 

[Czernobog]

Non-sequitur ignored.

What makes example 2 identical to example 1?

Actually it isn't. You created a strawman that "Theists accuse atheists of being hypocritical for criticizing their faith, while simultaneously have faiths of their own."

My response to your straw man is sue them.

It matches the snark of the OP perfectly. Are you going to criticize my use of snark when you yourself used snark first?

You apparently don't understand what a "Strawman" is. When a behaviour is noted as the Opening statement, it, by definition, is not a Strawman deflecting from the topic. It is the topic. Just deflecting from the topic by spewing misused terms is irrational, pathetic, and beneath you. I know you can do better, because I have seen you do better.

Do better. you are dismissed.

I couldn't have explained it more clearly to you.

Yeah. You explained it wrong. What you are calling a Strawman isn't a Strawman. Do better. You are dismissed.

You telling me to do better is hysterical.

Apparently, you haven't figured out that "You are dismissed" is a polite way of telling someone who is inadequate to the discussion at hand to fuck off, and toddle off to somewhere to which that feeble skills may be better suited. You. Are. Dismissed.

 

[featherlite]

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?

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.

 

[Czernobog]

So, you're incapable of discussing the OP. Fair enough. You are dismissed.

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.

 

[Czernobog]

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?

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?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

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

Theists are of course wrong.

Being free from faith is just that: being free from faith and religion; no ‘faith’ is required to acknowledge the fact that there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists, and that religion and ‘god’ are creations of man.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, that was an absolutely useless input. If you have nothing to actually contribute, then why waste time posting?

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.’

 

[featherlite]

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?

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

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.

 

[Czernobog]

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?

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.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Not sure what you are insisting is wrong, Clayton. Atheists do use the word "faith". And they do proclaim faith in things, such as I have demonstrated. All I am trying to discover is if theists perceive a contextual difference in the usage of theists, and atheists of the word.