Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    He want bashing anything but presenting valid arguments. Your comment was unneeded and offensive, and disturbs a good debate we have here.

    Unless you meant it as sarcasm, hard to tell over internet.
    I was wanting to applaud his ability to form logical and intelligent arguments.
    The choice of words was on purpose though. I know it isn't bashing, but I find is often perceived as such.
    Apologies for the poor attempt to add comedy value
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    Same can be said about religious people. What about discrimination of gays? What about raising kids to religion and scaring them with horror stories about hell? (like my story above on this discussion, and I am only one example among thousands).

    What about bible verses I referred above on this discussion? And they are only drops of a sea.
    Well you've just agreed with me. People, regardless of their faith can be good and it's the same for the bad.

    Highlighting that religious people can be bad means little.

    Here's the point, assuming you are a naturalist, then if I did raise my kids in religion? You have no objective standard to tell me I'm wrong.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I, Hydeman, graciously accept this doctorate that I haven't really worked for. :lol:

    PRSOM.



    It's most likely sarcastic based on earlier posts by him so I'm fine with it.
    Then awesome. I just have been told countless times how I am narrow minded fool for not accepting their religion, even thou I am just presenting a few arguments with nice tone.

    From those people comment like that could have been serious so sorry for misunderstadning!
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    Then awesome. I just have been told countless times how I am narrow minded fool for not accepting their religion, even thou I am just presenting a few arguments with nice tone.

    From those people comment like that could have been serious so sorry for misunderstadning!
    No worries.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    wrong. Man is the root of all evil, who use religion to excuse thier actions.

    Faith on the other hand is a very good thing. I have faith and i am not evil, nor is my particular religion.
    Still waiting for a reason why faith is inherently good btw
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    People make fun of you for believing in magic without any evidence whatsoever.

    You should start thinking logically or get over it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Well you've just agreed with me. People, regardless of their faith can be good and it's the same for the bad.

    Highlighting that religious people can be bad means little.

    Here's the point, assuming you are a naturalist, then if I did raise my kids in religion? You have no objective standard to tell me I'm wrong.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Can you name some major crimes done in the name of atheism? (Hitler nor Stalin did what they did in the name of atheism but political ideas, and earlier wasn't even an atheist based on speeches he has given)

    And how does that I'm naturalist mean I cannot disagree with you raising your kids to religion.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalism

    Definition 4, philosophical one. It only means I deny (based on lack of evidence) any kind of deity or spiritual intervention. It says nothing about my moral values.

    I disagree with raising kids to religion for 2 reasons:
    1) I love knowledge and spreading one with no evidence behind it is against my values.
    2) it can make person a wreck. Happened to me as a kid.

    Of course they are your children, not mine, and my disagreeing won't matter.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    Can you name some major crimes done in the name of atheism? (Hitler nor Stalin did what they did in the name of atheism but political ideas, and earlier wasn't even an atheist based on speeches he has given)

    And how does that I'm naturalist mean I cannot disagree with you raising your kids to religion.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalism

    Definition 4, philosophical one. It only means I deny (based on lack of evidence) any kind of deity or spiritual intervention. It says nothing about my moral values.

    I disagree with raising kids to religion for 2 reasons:
    1) I love knowledge and spreading one with no evidence behind it is against my values.
    2) it can make person a wreck. Happened to me as a kid.

    Of course they are your children, not mine, and my disagreeing won't matter.
    You've misunderstood.

    Being a naturalist you have no reason to affirm any morality as objectively true.

    Morality is just the result of our social evolution.

    Really, I've explained twice that people can be good regardless of what they believe so I can't see why you are bringing up Stalin and Hitler.

    Now, if morality is ultimately subjective then there is no concrete right or wrong. You may disagree with me bringing up my kids as religious but you have no grounding to say it's wrong or bad, anymore than your preference for Orange juice over apple juice can say my liking of apple juice is bad.

    So when you tell religious people who are homophobic 'you are wrong', you'll have to explain how that is consistent with your world view.

    Here's a good quote from a Philosopher of biology. He's a agnostic 'I guess that means he wouldn't agree with your mantra 'there is no evidence', but affirms that 'the man who is says it's OK to rape little kids is as wrong as the man who says 2+2=5'.

    So morality is as objective as maths to him.

    What would your reply be? Is he right and if you do affirm that morality is objective then how do you explain that as a naturalist

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    You've misunderstood.

    Being a naturalist you have no reason to affirm any morality as objectively true.

    Morality is just the result of our social evolution.

    Really, I've explained twice that people can be good regardless of what they believe so I can't see why you are bringing up Stalin and Hitler.

    Now, if morality is ultimately subjective then there is no concrete right or wrong. You may disagree with me bringing up my kids as religious but you have no grounding to say it's wrong or bad, anymore than your preference for Orange juice over apple juice can say my liking of apple juice is bad.

    So when you tell religious people who are homophobic 'you are wrong', you'll have to explain how that is consistent with your world view.

    Here's a good quote from a Philosopher of biology. He's a agnostic 'I guess that means he wouldn't agree with your mantra 'there is no evidence', but affirms that 'the man who is says it's OK to rape little kids is as wrong as the man who says 2+2=5'.

    So morality is as objective as maths to him.

    What would your reply be? Is he right and if you do affirm that morality is objective then how do you explain that as a naturalist

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Please explain where I said morality is objective. All I said was I disagree. Subjectively from my point of view disagree. That is not equielevnt of saying I am objectively right.

    Morality can always be questioned. Of course if someone brought up raping kids he would be condemned, because most of people feel compassion towards victims and so fore think causing someone such a pain is not morally acceptable. Let's pretend for a moment that we are living in a primitive society where raping kids is normal. Would hhe be condemned? I don't think so.
    Morals are subjective.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    Please explain where I said morality is objective. All I said was I disagree. Subjectively from my point of view disagree. That is not equielevnt of saying I am objectively right.

    Morality can always be questioned. Of course if someone brought up raping kids he would be condemned, because most of people feel compassion towards victims and so fore think causing someone such a pain is not morally acceptable. Let's pretend for a moment that we are living in a primitive society where raping kids is normal. Would hhe be condemned? I don't think so.
    Morals are subjective.
    Well I commend you for being honest and straight forward.

    Under a naturalist perspective, you cannot argue that raping kids is wrong precisely because of your last point - it could be that some societies saw it as good!

    Now that we both agree that you are consistent with being a naturalist and accept morality as subjective, I want to draw the implications from that.

    You can not say that a religious fundamentalist is wrong for being homophobic or exclusive against people outside the faith. For when you say it is wrong, it is just like you saying you like the taste of strawberry ice cream - a preference.

    Now, let's consider that said fundamentalist lives in another country, with another culture. As a naturalist you have no basis in criticising them as wrong. Why should they listen to you?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Well I commend you for being honest and straight forward.

    Under a naturalist perspective, you cannot argue that raping kids is wrong precisely because of your last point - it could be that some societies saw it as good!

    Now that we both agree that you are consistent with being a naturalist and accept morality as subjective, I want to draw the implications from that.

    You can not say that a religious fundamentalist is wrong for being homophobic or exclusive against people outside the faith. For when you say it is wrong, it is just like you saying you like the taste of strawberry ice cream - a preference.

    Now, let's consider that said fundamentalist lives in another country, with another culture. As a naturalist you have no basis in criticising them as wrong. Why should they listen to you?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I can still argue all that based on arguments I have. I can still say "I think it's wrong because X"
    Others may disagree with me, my point is they have all right to, because no moral is objectively right. Of course the fundamentalist doesn't need to listen to me. If you happen to have noticed the fundamentalists on Middle East are not listening anybody, so why would they listen to me? They don't have to but you just proved my point. If fundamentalists listened to reasonable objective moral system there were no fundamentalists. Problem with this is that objective moral doesn't exist.

    It's just that I cannot claim to be absolutely right about things. Nor can you. You are absolutely right in your own mind but others won't agree with you, because your moral beliefs aren't absolutely right.

    What is morality beyond opinions anyway? Of course I see it as extremely good thing that our society condemns violence, rape etc. but that is because so many people on their subjective moral systems see these things as punishable. Arguments otherwise could be made, but they would most likely be shot down by supporters of arguments like emphathy and one's right to their own body, and because these people are majority (which I am one of) moral norms propanly won't chnage easily.
    Moral norms do chnage however, 500 years ago it wasn't ok to be gay, nowadays it is seen acceptable by many people.

    What makes your moral system objectively right? If you cannot answer this question then how is morality objective.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh wasn't gonna reply but this thread has been frustrating

    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

    The point about definition of faith is a fair one, and I am using the second definition from this link in this context. I would still argue that I do not think its benefical to believe anything before there is evidence because there are countlless things we could believe in if we just believed everything that we are told or what we can imagine. I am not saying I know for sure that god doesn't exist because I cannot prove that either; its logically very difficult if not impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. However burden of proof lies on ones who make the claim, the claim has been made thousands of years ago, yet there is not a single piece of evidence supporting it. What really makes god different from fairy tales? Or what makes god of one certain religion different and more existant than other gods?

    I do admit I might be slightly biased and sounded offensive earlier.
    The reason I despise religion so much is that I was raised to Christianity, and it messed up my mind and brought me a lot of sadness and fear when I was kid. Then once I turned atheist I felt very relieved, but my parents judged me. There might be good things religion causes, I am yet to see any good outcomes. Alas, if a Person wants to believe in god, santa Claus or toothfairy then so it be, what I am agaisnt is that those people sometimes try to convert others, make others follow their ideologies (like fundamental Christians often judge gay people), or raise their kids to religion what happened to me.
    Faith is a fundamentally philosophical concept -- notable particularly in epistemology and philosophy of religion. To start, dictionary definitions are not the one we use in academia, and in any case, the dictionary definition doesn't agree with your aforementioned explanations. The dictionary lists the following:

    a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
    b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

    Here we can see that faith is synonymous with loyalty -- it has nothing to do with religion. Fine.

    a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
    b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

    On the other hand, here is the definition of which you were explaining. Notice how (a) defines it where it specifically talks about the belief in 'God', but (b)? Separate definition. If it was strictly true that belief in God was with no proof then they would presumably make it part of the same definition.

    Nonetheless, even if we ignore that and assume that's what they believe, then in this case it's irrelevant. For a peer-reviewed academic exploration of the issue --without baseless assumptions-- look here (there's even a survey!)

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/ and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/


    I would still argue that I do not think its benefical to believe anything before there is evidence because there are countlless things we could believe in if we just believed everything that we are told or what we can imagine.

    But wait a second here -- what do we take is evidence? The theist might think any of the following:

    (1) intuition has more evidential worth when it comes to to a metaphysical claim regarding the existence of God or

    (2) that a priori justification is acceptable

    (3) mathematical logic is ideal for judgement (for example the use of predicate logic)*

    (or take Kierkegaard's idea of 'fideism')

    You don't really know what theist takes what as evidence so really you're just begging the question when you make an argument against them of 'blind faith with no evidence';and ultimately just because they don't subscribe to your belief of evidence (for example, physical / empirical) doesn't make their faith blind. Further, "lack of evidence" is pretty broad. The existence of a plurality of wrong answers doesn't somehow negate the right one. Who thinks truth must be easily apparent to everyone? Perhaps it's more difficult for some people to find truth than others. Perhaps some people find truth inconvenient and so believe something else.

    *see here for an example (introductory):
    Spoiler:
    Show
    

\begin{array}{rl} \text{Ax. 1.} & \left\{P(\varphi) \wedge \Box \; \forall x[\varphi(x) \to \psi(x)]\right\} \to P(\psi) \\ \text{Ax. 2.} & P(\neg \varphi) \leftrightarrow \neg P(\varphi) \\ \text{Th. 1.} & P(\varphi) \to \Diamond \; \exists x[\varphi(x)] \\ \text{Df. 1.} & G(x) \iff \forall \varphi [P(\varphi) \to \varphi(x)] \\ \text{Ax. 3.} & P(G) \\ \text{Th. 2.} & \Diamond \; \exists x \; G(x) \\ \text{Df. 2.} & \varphi \text{ ess } x \iff \varphi(x) \wedge \forall \psi \left\{\psi(x) \to \Box \; \forall y[\varphi(y) \to \psi(y)]\right\} \\ \text{Ax. 4.} & P(\varphi) \to \Box \; P(\varphi) \\ \text{Th. 3.} & G(x) \to G \text{ ess } x \\ \text{Df. 3.} & E(x) \iff \forall \varphi[\varphi \text{ ess } x \to \Box \; \exists y \; \varphi(y)] \\ \text{Ax. 5.} & P(E) \\ \text{Th. 4.} & \Box \; \exists x \; G(x) \end{array}

    where :

    Axiom 11: If \varphi is good, and \varphi forces \psi (that is, it's necessarily true that anything with property \psi has property \psi), then \psi is also good.

    Axiom 22: For every property \varphi exactly one of \varphi and ¬\varphi¬\varphi is good. (If ¬\varphi¬\varphi is good, we may as well say that \varphi is bad.)

    Theorem 11(Good Things Happen): If is good, then it's possible that something exists with property \varphi

    However burden of proof lies on ones who make the claim, the claim has been made thousands of years ago, yet there is not a single piece of evidence supporting it.
    Fine, but the burden falls on whoever makes a claim that is intended to have rational weight, viz. a claim which we are supposedly obliged to affirm on rational grounds. Therefore, when the theist affirms theism in this way, then of course, certainly, they have a burden of proof. Likewise, when the atheist affirms atheism in this way (which many people do), then they too, of course, have burden of proof. Sorry to say, but there isn't any trick about how if you phrase your beliefs in a negative way you no longer have to reason or thus explain about them. Furthermore, ironically, you mentioned the burden of proof yet you make the positive claim that 'no single piece of evidence supports this'. This would require a further substantiation

    What really makes god different from fairy tales? Or what makes god of one certain religion different and more existant than other gods
    But this is a misleading connection to make. If we're dealing with arguments from design, or teleological, or ontological arguments, or cosmological argument we're dealing with something quite different to 'fairy tales'. To use examples, let's say Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or a claim of apples fall up on a quite obvious level. The first two have to do with physically proportional beings (which God isn't -- and is defined to be immaterial in most cases), and the later has to do with a claim that goes against what is empirically observable. So long as you reject something like an argument for design / argument from fine tuning e.g., God is in no way empirically observable, or in some doesn't match with what is empirically observable. You can either reason from certain features of the universe (such as causation ) or reason from entirely non-empirical, a priori principles (like background probability) in order to reach the conclusion that God exists (I don't think this is the strongest way to do so though)

    The reason I despise religion so much is that I was raised to Christianity, and it messed up my mind and brought me a lot of sadness and fear when I was kid. Then once I turned atheist I felt very relieved, but my parents judged me. There might be good things religion causes, I am yet to see any good outcomes. Alas, if a Person wants to believe in god, santa Claus or toothfairy then so it be, what I am agaisnt is that those people sometimes try to convert others, make others follow their ideologies (like fundamental Christians often judge gay people), or raise their kids to religion what happened to me.
    Look, I'm able to understand that -- I have many friends and spoke to many people who have felt similar experiences to you. It sucks and obviously I'm sorry you felt this way. I've so much experience with this that I can almost empathise with you (but not quite). Nonetheless it shouldn't be the case that people are haphazardly claimed to be irrational for their beliefs when often, you miss the very point of what those beliefs are.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Assassin)
    Tbh wasn't gonna reply but this thread has been frustrating



    Faith is a fundamentally philosophical concept -- notable particularly in epistemology and philosophy of religion. To start, dictionary definitions are not the one we use in academia, and in any case, the dictionary definition doesn't agree with your aforementioned explanations. The dictionary lists the following:

    a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
    b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

    Here we can see that faith is synonymous with loyalty -- it has nothing to do with religion. Fine.

    a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
    b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

    On the other hand, here is the definition of which you were explaining. Notice how (a) defines it where it specifically talks about the belief in 'God', but (b)? Separate definition. If it was strictly true that belief in God was with no proof then they would presumably make it part of the same definition.

    Nonetheless, even if we ignore that and assume that's what they believe, then in this case it's irrelevant. For a peer-reviewed academic exploration of the issue --without baseless assumptions-- look here (there's even a survey!)

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/ and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/





    But wait a second here -- what do we take is evidence? The theist might think any of the following:

    (1) intuition has more evidential worth when it comes to to a metaphysical claim regarding the existence of God or

    (2) that a priori justification is acceptable

    (3) mathematical logic is ideal for judgement (for example the use of predicate logic)*

    You don't really know what theist takes what as evidence so really you're just begging the question when you make an argument against them of 'blind faith with no evidence';and ultimately just because they don't subscribe to your belief of evidence (for example, physical / empirical) doesn't make their faith blind. Further, "lack of evidence" is pretty broad. The existence of a plurality of wrong answers doesn't somehow negate the right one. Who thinks truth must be easily apparent to everyone? Perhaps it's more difficult for some people to find truth than others. Perhaps some people find truth inconvenient and so believe something else.

    *see here for an example (introductory):
    Spoiler:
    Show
    

\begin{array}{rl} \text{Ax. 1.} & \left\{P(\varphi) \wedge \Box \; \forall x[\varphi(x) \to \psi(x)]\right\} \to P(\psi) \\ \text{Ax. 2.} & P(\neg \varphi) \leftrightarrow \neg P(\varphi) \\ \text{Th. 1.} & P(\varphi) \to \Diamond \; \exists x[\varphi(x)] \\ \text{Df. 1.} & G(x) \iff \forall \varphi [P(\varphi) \to \varphi(x)] \\ \text{Ax. 3.} & P(G) \\ \text{Th. 2.} & \Diamond \; \exists x \; G(x) \\ \text{Df. 2.} & \varphi \text{ ess } x \iff \varphi(x) \wedge \forall \psi \left\{\psi(x) \to \Box \; \forall y[\varphi(y) \to \psi(y)]\right\} \\ \text{Ax. 4.} & P(\varphi) \to \Box \; P(\varphi) \\ \text{Th. 3.} & G(x) \to G \text{ ess } x \\ \text{Df. 3.} & E(x) \iff \forall \varphi[\varphi \text{ ess } x \to \Box \; \exists y \; \varphi(y)] \\ \text{Ax. 5.} & P(E) \\ \text{Th. 4.} & \Box \; \exists x \; G(x) \end{array}

    where :

    Axiom 11: If \varphi is good, and \varphi forces \psi (that is, it's necessarily true that anything with property \psi has property \psi), then \psi is also good.

    Axiom 22: For every property \varphi exactly one of \varphi and ¬\varphi¬\varphi is good. (If ¬\varphi¬\varphi is good, we may as well say that \varphi is bad.)

    Theorem 11(Good Things Happen): If is good, then it's possible that something exists with property \varphi


    Fine, but the burden falls on whoever makes a claim that is intended to have rational weight, viz. a claim which we are supposedly obliged to affirm on rational grounds. Therefore, when the theist affirms theism in this way, then of course, certainly, they have a burden of proof. Likewise, when the atheist affirms atheism in this way (which many people do), then they too, of course, have burden of proof. Sorry to say, but there isn't any trick about how if you phrase your beliefs in a negative way you no longer have to reason or thus explain about them. Furthermore, ironically, you mentioned the burden of proof yet you make the positive claim that 'no single piece of evidence supports this'. This would require a further substantiation



    But this is a misleading connection to make. If we're dealing with arguments from design, or teleological, or ontological arguments, or cosmological argument we're dealing with something quite different to 'fairy tales'. To use examples, let's say Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or a claim of apples fall up on a quite obvious level. The first two have to do with physically proportional beings (which God isn't -- and is defined to be immaterial in most cases), and the later has to do with a claim that goes against what is empirically observable. So long as you reject something like an argument for design / argument from fine tuning e.g., God is in no way empirically observable, or in some doesn't match with what is empirically observable. You can either reason from certain features of the universe (such as causation ) or reason from entirely non-empirical, a priori principles (like background probability) in order to reach the conclusion that God exists (I don't think this is the strongest way to do so though)



    Look, I'm able to understand that -- I have many friends and spoke to many people who have felt similar experiences to you. It sucks and obviously I'm sorry you felt this way. I've so much experience with this that I can almost empathise with you (but not quite). Nonetheless it shouldn't be the case that people are haphazardly claimed to be irrational for their beliefs when often, you miss the very point of what those beliefs are.
    I think evidence should be observable by anyone; so intuition of some individual theist is not sufficient evidence. If they choose to believe in their personal experiences then they do, whatever. Its still blind faith from my point of view. Priori part is something they choose to believe. When it comes to mathematical logic, I think it comes down into what axioms can be used. Correct me if I am wrong but I tought that one cannot simply invent an axiom.

    If theists will argue that god is inobservable then there is really nothing to to debate since they cannot prove it, yet its logically impossible (or very very difficult at least) to prove negative.

    I am sure you have heard this one before, but I'd love to hear your response on it:
    If god is omnipotent and benecolent why is there suffering in the world? And why is old testamentt full of cruelties done by god?

    Lastly, you don't need to symphatize me, feel free to hate me actually if you wish. You have right to opinion about me. I don't hate you thou, I think you present fine arguments, even if I disagree with almost everything you said.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    I can still argue all that based on arguments I have. I can still say "I think it's wrong because X"
    Others may disagree with me, my point is they have all right to, because no moral is objectively right. Of course the fundamentalist doesn't need to listen to me. If you happen to have noticed the fundamentalists on Middle East are not listening anybody, so why would they listen to me? They don't have to but you just proved my point. If fundamentalists listened to reasonable objective moral system there were no fundamentalists. Problem with this is that objective moral doesn't exist.

    It's just that I cannot claim to be absolutely right about things. Nor can you. You are absolutely right in your own mind but others won't agree with you, because your moral beliefs aren't absolutely right.

    What is morality beyond opinions anyway? Of course I see it as extremely good thing that our society condemns violence, rape etc. but that is because so many people on their subjective moral systems see these things as punishable. Arguments otherwise could be made, but they would most likely be shot down by supporters of arguments like emphathy and one's right to their own body, and because these people are majority (which I am one of) moral norms propanly won't chnage easily.
    Moral norms do chnage however, 500 years ago it wasn't ok to be gay, nowadays it is seen acceptable by many people.

    What makes your moral system objectively right? If you cannot answer this question then how is morality objective.
    Whilst I am not necessarily agreeing with or defending scrappy-coco, I think you are either completely misunderstanding their point or deliberately ignoring it :dontknow: Either that, or I am being thick (which is also a possibility)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Assassin)
    Tbh wasn't gonna reply but this thread has been frustrating



    Faith is a fundamentally philosophical concept -- notable particularly in epistemology and philosophy of religion. To start, dictionary definitions are not the one we use in academia, and in any case, the dictionary definition doesn't agree with your aforementioned explanations. The dictionary lists the following:

    a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
    b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

    Here we can see that faith is synonymous with loyalty -- it has nothing to do with religion. Fine.

    a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
    b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

    On the other hand, here is the definition of which you were explaining. Notice how (a) defines it where it specifically talks about the belief in 'God', but (b)? Separate definition. If it was strictly true that belief in God was with no proof then they would presumably make it part of the same definition.

    Nonetheless, even if we ignore that and assume that's what they believe, then in this case it's irrelevant. For a peer-reviewed academic exploration of the issue --without baseless assumptions-- look here (there's even a survey!)

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/ and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/





    But wait a second here -- what do we take is evidence? The theist might think any of the following:

    (1) intuition has more evidential worth when it comes to to a metaphysical claim regarding the existence of God or

    (2) that a priori justification is acceptable

    (3) mathematical logic is ideal for judgement (for example the use of predicate logic)*

    (or take Kierkegaard's idea of 'fideism'

    You don't really know what theist takes what as evidence so really you're just begging the question when you make an argument against them of 'blind faith with no evidence';and ultimately just because they don't subscribe to your belief of evidence (for example, physical / empirical) doesn't make their faith blind. Further, "lack of evidence" is pretty broad. The existence of a plurality of wrong answers doesn't somehow negate the right one. Who thinks truth must be easily apparent to everyone? Perhaps it's more difficult for some people to find truth than others. Perhaps some people find truth inconvenient and so believe something else.

    *see here for an example (introductory):
    Spoiler:
    Show
    

\begin{array}{rl} \text{Ax. 1.} & \left\{P(\varphi) \wedge \Box \; \forall x[\varphi(x) \to \psi(x)]\right\} \to P(\psi) \\ \text{Ax. 2.} & P(\neg \varphi) \leftrightarrow \neg P(\varphi) \\ \text{Th. 1.} & P(\varphi) \to \Diamond \; \exists x[\varphi(x)] \\ \text{Df. 1.} & G(x) \iff \forall \varphi [P(\varphi) \to \varphi(x)] \\ \text{Ax. 3.} & P(G) \\ \text{Th. 2.} & \Diamond \; \exists x \; G(x) \\ \text{Df. 2.} & \varphi \text{ ess } x \iff \varphi(x) \wedge \forall \psi \left\{\psi(x) \to \Box \; \forall y[\varphi(y) \to \psi(y)]\right\} \\ \text{Ax. 4.} & P(\varphi) \to \Box \; P(\varphi) \\ \text{Th. 3.} & G(x) \to G \text{ ess } x \\ \text{Df. 3.} & E(x) \iff \forall \varphi[\varphi \text{ ess } x \to \Box \; \exists y \; \varphi(y)] \\ \text{Ax. 5.} & P(E) \\ \text{Th. 4.} & \Box \; \exists x \; G(x) \end{array}

    where :

    Axiom 11: If \varphi is good, and \varphi forces \psi (that is, it's necessarily true that anything with property \psi has property \psi), then \psi is also good.

    Axiom 22: For every property \varphi exactly one of \varphi and ¬\varphi¬\varphi is good. (If ¬\varphi¬\varphi is good, we may as well say that \varphi is bad.)

    Theorem 11(Good Things Happen): If is good, then it's possible that something exists with property \varphi

    Fine, but the burden falls on whoever makes a claim that is intended to have rational weight, viz. a claim which we are supposedly obliged to affirm on rational grounds. Therefore, when the theist affirms theism in this way, then of course, certainly, they have a burden of proof. Likewise, when the atheist affirms atheism in this way (which many people do), then they too, of course, have burden of proof. Sorry to say, but there isn't any trick about how if you phrase your beliefs in a negative way you no longer have to reason or thus explain about them. Furthermore, ironically, you mentioned the burden of proof yet you make the positive claim that 'no single piece of evidence supports this'. This would require a further substantiation



    But this is a misleading connection to make. If we're dealing with arguments from design, or teleological, or ontological arguments, or cosmological argument we're dealing with something quite different to 'fairy tales'. To use examples, let's say Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy or a claim of apples fall up on a quite obvious level. The first two have to do with physically proportional beings (which God isn't -- and is defined to be immaterial in most cases), and the later has to do with a claim that goes against what is empirically observable. So long as you reject something like an argument for design / argument from fine tuning e.g., God is in no way empirically observable, or in some doesn't match with what is empirically observable. You can either reason from certain features of the universe (such as causation ) or reason from entirely non-empirical, a priori principles (like background probability) in order to reach the conclusion that God exists (I don't think this is the strongest way to do so though)



    Look, I'm able to understand that -- I have many friends and spoke to many people who have felt similar experiences to you. It sucks and obviously I'm sorry you felt this way. I've so much experience with this that I can almost empathise with you (but not quite). Nonetheless it shouldn't be the case that people are haphazardly claimed to be irrational for their beliefs when often, you miss the very point of what those beliefs are.
    What do you mean by:
    "'blind faith with no evidence';and ultimately just because they don't subscribe to your belief of evidence (for example, physical / empirical) doesn't make their faith blind"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I just ignore it. Some people believe in the big bang theory in order to compensate for gods existence. My argument to that is always this, no matter how far back they can explain history in that the world started from a small singularity or particles or whatever it maybe, they can never explain how the particles got there. I do not believe and will not ever believe that they just appeared or were already there. Thats why I think that theory is flawed. Nothing can ever just be there or appear.

    There is a creator, who created us, the earth and the universe. Nothing will ever change that in my mind. Ever.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the terminator)
    Nothing can ever just be there or appear.
    That has been shown to be untrue by physicists. There are particles that "just appear".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I only started to really bash religion when I found out about the doctrines of many of them. I was only ever a christian because I raised to be one, just like most other christians. it's the same with every other religion, especially islam, hinduism, sikhism and judaism.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by the terminator)
    I just ignore it. Some people believe in the big bang theory in order to compensate for gods existence. My argument to that is always this, no matter how far back they can explain history in that the world started from a small singularity or particles or whatever it maybe, they can never explain how the particles got there. I do not believe and will not ever believe that they just appeared or were already there. Thats why I think that theory is flawed. Nothing can ever just be there or appear.

    There is a creator, who created us, the earth and the universe. Nothing will ever change that in my mind. Ever.
    So you think the theory is flawed because you refuse to believe it? Sounds logical.

    In any case, you're not exactly worth debating with, although I appreciate your honesty in stating that you've no intention to change your mind regardless of any argument or evidence put before you. A lot of your compatriots are not quite so open despite sharing your mindset and insist on having pages upon pages worth of 'debate', thereby wasting everybody else's time.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    So you think the theory is flawed because you refuse to believe it? Sounds logical.

    In any case, you're not exactly worth debating with, although I appreciate your honesty in stating that you've no intention to change your mind regardless of any argument or evidence put before you. A lot of your compatriots are not quite so open despite sharing your mindset and insist on having pages upon pages worth of 'debate', thereby wasting everybody else's time.
    I dont intend to have a debate as i dont intend to change anybodys mind regarding this. I was brought up religiously and I will always be religious and I hope that my children can also follow on.

    I was stating my belief if anything, something that will never change, no matter what evidence people may have.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 1, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.