Technically all knowledge have faith. You are hoping for its basis to be true. For science, it is science itself. For religion otherwise it is God.
"Faith is the basis for my belief"
Posts
Total:
278
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm saying anything and everything can be believed "on faith".Faith and trust *can* be synonyms, but not in this context. A religious faith is 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. Meaning faith is is not just trust, but, per the Bible, evidence.
Now you are walking back your original statement and trying to justify it by saying "faith *can* be synonymous, but not in *this* context?
Compare your two statements:
a) "Religious faith and trust are not synonymous."
b) "Faith and trust *can* be synonyms,..."
Which is it? You make an either-or statement then walk it back.
***
Equivocation is a fallacy by which a specific word or phrase in an argument is used with more than one meaning. It's also known as semantic equivocation. Compare this with the related term of amphiboly, in which the ambiguity is in the grammatical construction of the sentence rather than just a single word or phrase.
"Equivocation is a common fallacy because it often is quite hard to notice that a shift in meaning has taken place,"
"A religious faith is 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. Meaning faith is is not just trust, but, per the Bible, evidence.
What is the significance of those words? Substance of things hoped for? The EVIDENCE of things not seen? God opens up and confirms to our minds the evidence of things not seen through reason and logic, for those who persevere and remain steadfast, TRUSTING in Him without being swayed, our roots firmly established.
God provides EVIDENCE for things hoped for and not yet seen. There is substance in the things hoped for.
and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
and our hope for you is firmly grounded, knowing that as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort.
who delivered us from so great a peril of death, and will deliver us, He on whom we have set our hope. And He will yet deliver us,
Now, that is trust!
Colossians 1:22-23
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.
22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.
Again, in trusting in Jesus we understand that He is able to do more than we could ever hope for or imaging.
nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day.
Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
Those who have truly put their trust in Jesus Christ and rely on Him alone will never be put to shame. They will not turn back even if they may be unfaithful in meeting God just requirements in their own ability. That is why they do not rely or trust in their ability but in the ability of Jesus Christ, and His ability alone for their salvation and right standing before God.
-->
@PGA2.0
Faith not synonymous with trust?
Nope. The words do not mean the same thing. I agree with your provided definition: "FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof". Trust implies a certitude too, but not in the absence of evidence.
You implicitly show you understand this when you use both word in the same sentence: "Why would you put faith in something or someone you do not trust?" If the words mean the same thing, then this sentence is nonsensical...
While your underlined statement can be true I have already discussed this in identifying three types of faith - 1) blind faith (as underlined in your last statement), 2) reasonable or rational faith, in which logic and reason is applied, or, 3) Irrational or illogical faith.
1 and 3 are the same thing, and 2 is no longer faith. If you have reason to believe, then you don't need faith. Share your reasons, not your faith...
It is something you do not wish to accept and are closed to, so you villanize my words as gish gallop.
I'll accept what can be shown with reason or evidence. Ive seen no argument or evidence that leads me to that conclusion. Your arguments from a particular theological bent are uncompelling to me. Those are arguments for believers.
And, by definition, you have provided gish gallop - rapid fire assertions and misrepresentation that would take much longer to address than originally uttered. I wonder if you are capable on focusing on one argument at a time or limiting your arguments so that an interlocutor might be able to address them in one post? 2 long replies to my short statements doesn't bode well for that possibility.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Faith and belief are the same things.I'll have to disagree with you there. I think I could have qualified my statement better. After all, knowledge is a belief - a justified true belief. So, perhaps in a limited sense, faith and belief can be the same thing, but not all faith is the same thing as all belief.I also object to faith being equated to trust. If nothing else, there is a religious connotation to faith. Beyond that, trust is something that is generally earned (based on evidence) and faith is trust without evidence....if you have evidence, then you don't need faith.Hopefully this clears up the definitions I am using and allows us to communicate a little better.
Well if it helps you sleep better at night, believe whatever you want. If you want to be able to discuss things with religious people honestly, then you ought to be able to understand what their definitions as well. I find it incredulous that someone claiming to be skeptical about someone else's position does so from their own place of power. That is a really easy thing to do - Christians do it all the time when talking to atheists. And atheists as a general rule get frustrated by this attitude expecting in most cases that the Christian will leave their place of power and simply agree to the skeptics definition of words.
Yet, I think if either side are going to sit in their places of power and be skeptical - it really becomes a non-fruitful discussion and leads mostly towards attacks on each other's integrity and views.
I, personally like to know what the horse is saying - and hearing it from the horse's mouth. I can listen to the duck tell me about the horse and the duck will get some things right - but the duck will also get many things wrong. But it would be unfair to both the horse and to me if I only listened to the duck and then whenever I spoke to the horse I used terms that both the duck and I agreed with and none of the terms that the horse agreed with. It will only make me look like a goose.
I can work with some of your redefined definitions, even if I don't agree with you. I don't hold to the notion that trust has to be earned. Yes, in many cases trust will need to be earned, but there are many cases where equally it is not earned. My parents do not need their trust to be earned from their children. True they can lose it. But it is not earned in the first place. Similarly, people in authority, like police officers, paramedics, doctors, etc. by virtue of their position do not need to earn trust from everyone before taking up their roles and or executing their roles. Imagine if I said to the police officer, sorry you can't arrest me because you have to earn my trust first? It is nonsense - similarly with the paramedic - sorry you cannot treat me before you earn my trust. I suggest it is the same with clergy - and I certainly take the view that God does not need to earn my trust. I actually think the idea that God has to earn my trust is just about the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
You attach a religious aspect to faith. Yet even Hollywood does not do that. How many movies ask people to have faith in themselves. How many psychologists and counselors around the world do the same thing? I think adding a religious aspect to faith is an addition that you are making that most people would probably disagree with. I certainly accept that faith can have a religious aspect - but I certainly do not think that the two must.
I am also puzzling over your notion of belief. I cannot see how belief is not knowledge. Yes, I know you qualify it with "justified true" but what does that even mean. With what measure is the true method of justification? Are scientific peer reviewed studies the only true method justification? Is a jury of 12 the only true method of justification? Is the views of the majority the only true method of justification? And if any one these are the only true method of justification - what was the measure that enabled us to know that they are the only true methods of justification? Surely it could not be itself - because that would produce a circular argument - and if it is something else other than itself - then it clearly is not the only true measure of justification. Perhaps then it is a mixture of possible methods of justification? But that really only makes things murky? It relies on an assumption - that because most of the different measures come up with the same sort of answer that perhaps they might be true. Yet that does not guarantee anything.
Truth, if such a thing actually exists, requires a standard to measure it. Religious belief in the main has its own standards of truth. And so far as those measures of truth do not contradict in the main other mixtures of relative truth then how could you or anyone with any degree of intellectual integrity say it is not something to rationally base truth and belief and knowledge on? Really you need to produce a foolproof measure to justify things before you can be skeptical about anything -- unless you take the view that you are the measure and you have everything worked out and in fact you are perfect and never make mistakes ever.
I also disagree with your view that evidence does not require faith. It depends on, what you mean by faith in the first place. As my illustration above in relation to the seat people sit on - faith is required by anyone who wants to sit on it. Now you may simply call it evidence you have obtained by experience or evidence you have ascertained by reason or the study of physics. Yet that is what I call faith and that is what I talk to others about when we are talking about faith. You must have faith that the evidence you received is accurate. you must have faith that the experiences you have had were genuine. you must have faith that the very mind you utilise is working properly. You must have faith that the scientific method is foolproof - or even that logic is logic. The fact that you do these things over and over again - does not remove your faith in those methods - simply it reinforces it. I think that without faith in what ever you are doing is - you would not do it or attempt to do it.
SO hopefully we can have fruitful discussions in the future.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Faith can be used to prop up any belief..even those which are demonstrably false. This makes "Faith" a completely worthless basis for belief.
Anything can be used to prop up any belief, even false ones, doesn't make it worthless automatically. Belief in anything requires faith
-->
@That1User
Hard disagree. Belief in something without evidence requires faith. Accepting evidence requires no faith.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Hard disagree. Belief in something without evidence requires faith. Accepting evidence requires no faith.
You have to have faith that the evidence you're seeing/observing is true.
-->
@That1User
lol, I have to accept evidence is what it is. You don't question whether a car is blue if it is blue do you? Thats not faith - its acceptance. If you need faith to accept reality, then you are effectively questioning reality to argue for what can't be proven by it.
-->
@Tradesecret
Unnecessarily long reply. I'm not going to bother addressing most of it.
Yes, I am a skeptic. Thay doesn't mean I am crippled by gullibility or so open-minded that my brain falls out. Ive explained my views, you should address those rather than attack my person (if it is an honest conversation you seek).
I've not redefined the words. Faith is (according to the Bible) "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". That basically says faith is evidence. Trust is not evidence. It is certitude *based* on evidence. So, when a believer says, you have faith in X ("just like the faith"), they are utilizing a definition of faith that *does* mean "trust" (not the same definition they use when describing their religious views) to suggest 'you do the same thing!' That is an acknowledgment that faith isn't all that great of a justification and suggests that good justifications are exactly the same. Its a tactic that fools some believers/non-believers alike, but it is a word game that essentially allows reality to be questioned so that an unprovable version of reality can be entertained. This mindset has a detrimental effect on knowledge too. If the basis of knowledge is faith (not evidence) then all knowledge is subject to worldviews rather than evidence. That's a problem.
Truth should be built on what can be demonstrated. That doesn't mean it must be demonstrated by me or any particular person. That view poo-poos expertise and the objective evidence experts draw from.
I think I've hit the highlights of your post.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Religious faith and trust are not synonymous. That's an equivocation. Trust is built on evidence, whereas faith is trust without warrant.
It is you who has this backwards.
Without arguing over definitions of faith, spiritual faith is confidence in something and or trust in something. Then...to have faith in something there must be a validation, good reason and or evidence. Are faith and confidence the same thing? yes they are, it's simply a word spiritual people use to define trust in spiritual things whether they be facts, principles, observations, experiences, witnesses ect ect. Belief in and of itself actually has very little to do with faith, because there first must be a level of trust and confidence. In other words a person could believe in something without any faith involved at all because they aren't the same meaning.
Both trust and confidence comes through evidence/reason, evidence through experience and experience through observation. You can't have faith without confidence, and one cannot have confidence without reason or justification. Blind faith (which is the least applicable form of faith) is nothing, it's simply a different meaning altogether....it's not the same principle as when faith is derived from justification and justification through reason. In this sense faith is a universal tool, it doesn't really belong to any one source of confidence.
Taking it a step further (since there is indeed levels of faith as Jesus of the Gospels points out) faith is more of an action than a belief. According to the Gospels (Jesus) faith is used to remove obstacles, but according to Jesus one must have confidence, which is the very foundation of faith. Putting ones "faith" to something is to accomplish something seemingly impossible without great levels of trust and confidence (faith) so it's more of a spiritual tool. You could say many people through history have used faith to accomplish great feats of all kinds.
Faith really was never meant to believe in things for no reason or justification, that's not what faith is used for and to be honest faith is not even applicable without confidence. Atheists though, tend to love to point out the weakest form of faith in an attempt to undermine spiritual ideas or concepts but they don't really get what it is really used for and how it works. Even after reading through the Gospels a nonbeliever would mock the passage where Jesus talks about moving mountains with faith not knowing Jesus wasn't saying to go around rearranging landscapes rather Jesus was saying faith is used to remove obstacles in ones life through trust and confidence. Note Jesus compares "great faith" to those who have "little faith" or no faith, and many times told an applicant it was their own faith (trust) that made something happen. Jesus had great faith and therefore a level of confidence that was also very effective and assured. That kind of faith is an action, and that faith was supported by the highest levels of confidence which again, is based on experience and observation.
Basically in a nutshell, there is no faith without warrant, it's a meaningless term.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Basically in a nutshell, there is no faith without warrant, it's a meaningless term.
Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I rest my case.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Faith not synonymous with trust?Nope. The words do not mean the same thing. I agree with your provided definition: "FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof". Trust implies a certitude too, but not in the absence of evidence.
Again, you are picking your definition from the meanings of the word, yet why would I place my trust in Someone unless I had faith in them?
While a word can have more than one meaning depending upon how it is used, the words faith and trust can most definitely have the same meaning and connote the same thing.
Maybe the following will convince you or show others how unreasonable your highlighted quote is. You are making up definitions to suit yourself while ignoring the long term, acceptable definitions these words have been understood to mean.
Faith:
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
Also,
Definition of faith (Entry 2 of 2)
***
noun
confidence or trust in a person or thing:
ORIGIN OF FAITH
1200–50; Middle English feith<Anglo-French fed,Old French feid, feit<Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs trust, akin to fīdere to trust. See confide
***
faith
[ feyth ]
***
Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.
***
Faith is defined as belief with strong conviction; firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof; complete trust, confidence, reliance, or devotion. Faith is the opposite of doubt.
Where do we learn about the character of God so we can have faith in him? The obvious answer is the Bible, in which God reveals himself fully to his followers. Everything we need to know about God is found there, and it is an accurate, in-depth picture of his nature.
One of the things we learn about God in the Bible is he is incapable of lying. His integrity is perfect; therefore, when he declares the Bible to be true, we can accept that statement, based on God’s character. Many passages in the Bible are impossible to understand, yet Christians accept them because of faith in a trustworthy God.
***
Matthew 25:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
21 “His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
Matthew 25:21 Amplified Bible (AMP)
21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful and trustworthy over a little, I will put you in charge of many things; share in the joy of your master.’
21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful and trustworthy over a little, I will put you in charge of many things; share in the joy of your master.’
***
1 Corinthians 4:2 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
2 In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy.
2 In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy.
1 Corinthians 4:2 Amplified Bible (AMP)
2 In this case, moreover, it is required [as essential and demanded] of stewards that one be found faithful and trustworthy.
2 In this case, moreover, it is required [as essential and demanded] of stewards that one be found faithful and trustworthy.
***
1 Corinthians 15:14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
1 Corinthians 15:14 Amplified Bible (AMP)
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain [useless, amounting to nothing], and your faith is also vain [imaginary, unfounded, devoid of value and benefit—not based on truth].
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain [useless, amounting to nothing], and your faith is also vain [imaginary, unfounded, devoid of value and benefit—not based on truth].
Vain faith is not based on truth, whereas pure faith is, and the object of that trustfulness is God. We trust God above men.
- Amplified BibleHe answered, “Because of your little faith [your lack of trust and confidence in the power of God]; for I assure you and most solemnly say to you, if you have [living] faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and [if it is God’s will] it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.
Little faith is a lack of trust in God.
- Amplified BibleJesus replied to them, “I assure you and most solemnly say to you, if you have faith [personal trust and confidence in Me] and do not doubt or allow yourself to be drawn in two directions, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen [if God wills it].
Yeshua answered them, “Yes! I tell you, if you have trust and don’t doubt, you will not only do what was done to this fig tree; but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Go and throw yourself into the sea!’ it will be done.
Faith, belief, and trust are often used synonymously in the Bible.
- Amplified BibleFor this reason I am telling you, whatever things you ask for in prayer [in accordance with God’s will], believe [with confident trust] that you have received them, and they will be given to you.
I.e., have faith that they will be given to you.
- Amplified BibleAnd blessed [spiritually fortunate and favored by God] is she who believed and confidently trusted that there would be a fulfillment of the things that were spoken to her [by the angel sent] from the Lord.”
Indeed you are blessed, because you have trusted that the promise Adonai has made to you will be fulfilled.”
- Amplified BibleFirst, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith [your trust and confidence in His power, wisdom, and goodness] is being proclaimed in all the world.
First, I thank my God through Yeshua the Messiah for all of you, because the report of your trust is spreading throughout the whole world.
***
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.From peitho; persuasion, i.e. Credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself -- assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.
Strong's Concordance
pistis: faith, faithfulness
Original Word: πίστις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: pistis
Phonetic Spelling: (pis'-tis)
Definition: faith, faithfulness
Usage: faith, belief, trust, confidence; fidelity, faithfulness.
History and Etymology for trust
Noun and Verb
Middle English, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse traust trust; akin to Old English trēowe faithful
- (you can) depend on/upon it idiom
- accept/take sth on faith idiom
- bank
- bank on sb/sth
- believe
- believe in sb
- distrust
- distrustful
- have faith! idiom
- I wouldn't trust sb as far as I could throw them idiom
- keep faith with sth/sb idiom
- mistrustful
- mistrustfully
- put/place your faith in sth/sb idiom
- reliance
- reliant
- trustable
- turn to sb/sth
- untrustworthiness
***
trust
(trʌst)
n
1. reliance on and confidence in the truth, worth, reliability, etc, of a person or thing; faith.
Verb
1.
trust - have confidence or faith in; "We can trust in God"; "Rely on your friends"; "bank on your good education";
trust
verb
1. believe in, have faith in, depend on, count on, bank on, lean on, rely upon, swear by, take at face value, take as gospel, place reliance on, place your trust in, pin your faith on, place or have confidence in 'I trust you completely,' he said.
believe in doubt, suspect, discredit, beware, distrust, mistrust, disbelieve, be sceptical of, lack confidence in, lack faith in
trust
noun
1. Absolute certainty in the trustworthiness of another:
***
Synonyms: believe in, have faith in, depend on, count on More Synonyms of trust
-->
@PGA2.0
Your reductive representation of my view (provided over multiple responses) is not accurate, and your gish gallop'ed reply (what I read of it) attempts to address something that is not mine. I do not 'trust' you mean to have an honest discussion (based on our interaction thus far). If that changes, we can have a meaningful exchange. If not, it's a waste of time.
At this point IDK if this post contradicts my viewpoint 3 days ago, but I will say it.
Faith is needed in the basis of belief, because if it is 100% certain, of no need of faith, then it is facts. There is no need to disbelieve in facts unless you have faith that they are wrong, which is also faith.
You have faith that what you have taught was correct(or even wrong).
-->
@SkepticalOne
While your underlined statement can be true I have already discussed this in identifying three types of faith - 1) blind faith (as underlined in your last statement), 2) reasonable or rational faith, in which logic and reason is applied, or, 3) Irrational or illogical faith.1 and 3 are the same thing, and 2 is no longer faith. If you have reason to believe, then you don't need faith. Share your reasons, not your faith...
Again, you are wrong. Blind faith is a belief that may or may not be true. It may believe in God as reasonable with looking into the evidence, thus without confirming the belief with evidence. Irrational faith is believing in something that does not make sense or goes against logic.
Number 2 (reasonable faith) is still faith with evidence attached. If you do not believe in God you explain existence and origins in other ways, such as blind indifferent chance happenstance since no intention or reason is behind the universe or existence. It still requires faith since you cannot test your belief by seeing or repeating the process or origins or life from non-life. What happens with the absence of belief in God is that you find other reasons for origins and existence. You construct a worldview and build on or confirm that presupposition by things that agree with it while ignoring those that do not agree with it. Thus, you have a confirmation bias. What you expect to find you find while ignoring the evidence that opposes your belief in naturalism and materialism.
It is something you do not wish to accept and are closed to, so you villanize my words as gish gallop.I'll accept what can be shown with reason or evidence. Ive seen no argument or evidence that leads me to that conclusion. Your arguments from a particular theological bent are uncompelling to me. Those are arguments for believers.
Neither are atheists or agnostics that build in a number of presuppositions that do not follow from their starting point of either denial of God or ignorance of Him. They have to rely on blind indifferent happenstance that lacks intent, meaning, value, purpose to presuppose what they do. That means FAITH. They trust in something without conclusive proof, even ignoring the things that demolish the reasonableness of such beliefs. They are inconsistent when they take on such beliefs because they borrow from the Judeo-Christian framework, usually unknowingly. Thus, they do not work exclusively from their own system of belief but keep cheating by borrowing someone else's.
And, by definition, you have provided gish gallop - rapid fire assertions and misrepresentation that would take much longer to address than originally uttered. I wonder if you are capable on focusing on one argument at a time or limiting your arguments so that an interlocutor might be able to address them in one post? 2 long replies to my short statements doesn't bode well for that possibility.
No, I have explained or questioned why your system of beliefs fails. I have asked probing questions that the atheist or agnostic is either afraid to answer or does not have what is necessary to make sense of them. Thus, the sure defence is denial and avoidance. So, while I am able to answer everyone of your questions the same is not true of mine to you.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your reductive representation of my view (provided over multiple responses) is not accurate, and your gish gallop'ed reply (what I read of it) attempts to address something that is not mine. I do not 'trust' you mean to have an honest discussion (based on our interaction thus far). If that changes, we can have a meaningful exchange. If not, it's a waste of time.
You're on the defensive again! When in denial use "gish gallop" as your form of escapism. Nice! What you call gish gallop is me providing proof of my claim.
On top of that add some ad homs by implying I am not honest. Then you imply I am not having a meaningful exchange because I probe into how your worldview is meaningful from your (or from an atheists/agnostics perspective) starting presuppositions - blind indifferent chance happenstance or ignorance.
Is it me who is not being honest here? Why can't you answer my questions and why do you ignore my followups. I am most willing to continue but I prefer a shared conversation with give and take.
-->
@PGA2.0
Try not responding with gigantic strings of bible verses and opinions other than your own. Your posts are difficult to engage with, keep them tighter and then you'll get a conversation. I've told you this before, and you basically said "I'm not writing them for YOU." No duh, you're writing largely to hear yourself speak.
-->
@PGA2.0
You're on the defensive again! When in denial use "gish gallop" as your form of escapism.
Typical gish gallop. Pointing out a tactic which disallows a real discussion is not defensive or escapism. ...especially since we've actually had that discussion before. In my opinion, the escapism here is throwing many many words on a page in an attempt to deflect from the actual discussion presented by the OP
And, its not ad hom unless it is an attempt to avoid the discussion - I'm trying to bring you back to the discussion rather than running across the countryside chasing rabbits. ;^)
-->
@SkepticalOne
I also noticed you have once again changed your religious belief to Pastafarianism, from atheist and agnostic, and originally Christian. How steadfast is your faith this time? To me (IMO), Pastafarianism is nonsense. Who revealed this stuff to you as reasonable or is it something your mind prefers to believe and trust in as you pick and choose?
It has only been known since 2005, per Wikipedia, and invented by a man, Bobby Henderson. What makes him right or an authority on anything? Your Bible, "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster," written by Henderson in 2006 is a satirical look at religion and cannot be taken seriously. There is ZERO evidence for his claims, such as - "an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe after drinking heavily."
Although Henderson has stated that "the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma", some general beliefs are held by Pastafarians.
This is the dogma of Henderson that requires blind faith for anyone gullible enough (IMO) to believe it as reasonable, although it is just another way to decry Christianity and poke fun of it. That is the goal behind this "religion," IMO.
dogma
noun
- 1.a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true:
-->
@PGA2.0
Way to get the joke, bro.
-->
@PGA2.0
I also noticed you have once again changed your religious belief to Pastafarianism, from atheist and agnostic, and originally Christian. How steadfast is your faith this time?
More deflection, but this is amusing to me, so I'll play.
Pastafarianism is not contrary to atheism, agnosticism, or even Christianity since it is not a belief in a real god, but a clever illustration of why government sponsored religion in public schools is a bad idea.
I'm a proponent of true religious freedom (which is not religious privilege like some believe), and I don't see that changing.
-->
@SkepticalOne
You're on the defensive again! When in denial use "gish gallop" as your form of escapism.Typical gish gallop. Pointing out a tactic which disallows a real discussion is not defensive or escapism. ...especially since we've actually had that discussion before. In my opinion, the escapism here is throwing many many words on a page in an attempt to deflect from the actual discussion presented by the OP
Not at all. The "many, many words" were an example of various thoughts on the subject, thus not just my opinion. They are confirmed by dictionaries, encyclopedias, and religious authorities as well as from the etymology of the word "faith." They do not deflect; rather they prove.
And, its not ad hom unless it is an attempt to avoid the discussion - I'm trying to bring you back to the discussion rather than running across the countryside chasing rabbits. ;^)
You imply I am not meaning to have an honest discussion. You are not trusting my honesty. I am being as honest as I know how to be. There is no intent to deceive you or be dishonest in what I say. I am being sincere.
"I do not 'trust' you mean to have an honest discussion (based on our interaction thus far)."
You are changing the meaning of ad hominem now. Let me spell it out for you from a number of sources:
Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack: an argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case. In short, it's when your rebuttal to an opponent's position is an irrelevant attack on the opponent personally rather than the subject at hand, to discredit the position by discrediting its supporter. It translates as "against the man."
The ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy associated with trying to undermine the opponent's arguments by personal attacks, through attacking their character or skill level, etc.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
The ad hominem fallacy occurs whenever the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing an argument is criticized instead of seeking to disprove the argument provided.
The fallacy of ad hominem abusive occurs when someone attacks the person who is making the argument, rather than criticizing the validity of their argument. More specifically, it focuses on someone’s supposed failings that are unrelated to the issue at hand criticizing their personal attributes such as character, intelligence, physical appearance, or morals.
-->
@ludofl3x
Try not responding with gigantic strings of bible verses and opinions other than your own. Your posts are difficult to engage with, keep them tighter and then you'll get a conversation. I've told you this before, and you basically said "I'm not writing them for YOU." No duh, you're writing largely to hear yourself speak.
Where is this quote from, what post? I have stated I have not writing them for him alone but to provide a defence against the charges for whoever wants to read them.
There was a reason for my string of quotes. He continued to argue against my reasoning, thus I showed it was not upon my authority or thinking on the subject alone.
First, he does not accept the definition of faith included in a number of reputable sources. Thus, I provided a number of them. Then he does not understand the biblical significance of the word so I provided a number of verses that have been translated interchangeably as either faith, belief, or trust. Then I provided some etymology of the word. Finally, I provided the Strongs Concordance definition of the word faith, which includes the connotation "trust.". All of my examples show that the word faith is interchangeable with trust, thus synonymous.
-->
@ludofl3x
Way to get the joke, bro.
I don't see the humour in it. The whole idea, IMO, is to mock and ridicule what Christians regard as holy and sacred.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I also noticed you have once again changed your religious belief to Pastafarianism, from atheist and agnostic, and originally Christian. How steadfast is your faith this time?More deflection, but this is amusing to me, so I'll play.Pastafarianism is not contrary to atheism, agnosticism, or even Christianity since it is not a belief in a real god, but a clever illustration of why government sponsored religion in public schools is a bad idea.
Are you using the label to identify what you really believe in - a flying spaghetti monster, first revealed in 2005 - or are you just using the term as a form of mockery of religions in general, especially Christianity? Although you are free to believe what you want, how substantially can you defend such a belief?
I'm a proponent of true religious freedom (which is not religious privilege like some believe), and I don't see that changing.
I give you credit for that!
-->
@PGA2.0
The "many, many words" were an example of various thoughts on the subject, thus not just my opinion. They are confirmed by dictionaries, encyclopedias, and religious authorities as well as from the etymology of the word "faith." They do not deflect; rather they prove.
I have agreed faith *can* mean trust, but that is not the definition of faith provided by the Bible.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
...meaning faith itself is evidence. "Trust" is not evidence - it is built on evidence. That being said, all the definitions you've provide do not argue against this point. There are multiple definitions for many words - that is not in contention. What is in contention is that a particular (Biblical) definition of faith is a dubious basis of reasonable belief, and most especially, knowledge.
Also, you should keep in mind, my reply was directed at posts which primarily railed on things unrelated to definitions of trust and/or faith - that is the gish gallop.
And, you are confusing an attack on a bad strategy as an attack on your character. That's your mistake. Even still, at no point have I refused to discuss this topic. I left it up to you to get back on track or end the discussion. That's not ad hom, buddy.
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you using the label to identify what you really believe in - a flying spaghetti monster, first revealed in 2005 - or are you just using the term as a form of mockery of religions in general, especially Christianity?
Neither.
wow thank you for ignoring me :ll
-->
@Intelligence_06
Who are you talking to, buddy?
-->
@Intelligence_06
I'll assume this was directed at me (be sure to tag me so I'll get notifications):
At this point IDK if this post contradicts my viewpoint 3 days ago, but I will say it.Faith is needed in the basis of belief, because if it is 100% certain, of no need of faith, then it is facts. There is no need to disbelieve in facts unless you have faith that they are wrong, which is also faith.You have faith that what you have taught was correct(or even wrong).
Knowledge is a form of belief - a true and justified belief, but belief all the same. Also, I would point out absolute certainty (100% certain) is not a reasonable standard. We can be fairly certain our conclusions based on known facts (or expert opinion based on evidence) are accurate. That is good enough and allows room for new evidence, if and when it is found, to further shape our beliefs to be more and more accurate.