Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't matter. You use faith the way you need to maintain a less valid statement of belief about religion/god defining a less valid world view and theist use their faith to maintain the illusion of reality.
Not much different.
The rest of us understand that we have levels of faith so there is no need to define it literally. Blind faith is nonsense and observation based faith is more rational.
There is a little caveat here when it comes using faith in theology
IMO, Yes, to start off, we observe things in nature, use our intelligence and logic, and form the faith. This goes up step by step as we build our faith and make it more stronger, and get more confident about it, however; the FINAL LEAP in the theological faith IS blind.
Jumping into a tiger’s cage in the name of Jesus is not blind faith - that’s defying logic and intelligence, which in other words is called STUPIDITY.
Observing nature, pondering upon our creation, analyzing to reject or accept religious and holy text, and weighing in to believe that there is a force out there, is building faith. Believing that, THAT force is God (of whatever religion your heart talks to) is blind faith, for which you don’t need any evidence.
I ought to leave you to talk it over with Arach but I have to point out that you are making a very big and erroneous assumption here - that the gradual assemblage of evidence to get to the final leap of faith is itself blind faith because it ignores that the 'evidence' that you are wadding together as a way of climbing up to Ceiling -cat is invalid, wrong, or incorrect, and it takes Blind Faith to ignore the arguments that show it to be so.
There is a little caveat here when it comes using faith in theology
IMO, Yes, to start off, we observe things in nature, use our intelligence and logic, and form the faith. This goes up step by step as we build our faith and make it more stronger, and get more confident about it, however; the FINAL LEAP in the theological faith IS blind.
Jumping into a tiger’s cage in the name of Jesus is not blind faith - that’s defying logic and intelligence, which in other words is called STUPIDITY.
Observing nature, pondering upon our creation, analyzing to reject or accept religious and holy text, and weighing in to believe that there is a force out there, is building faith. Believing that, THAT force is God (of whatever religion your heart talks to) is blind faith, for which you don’t need any evidence.
yes. describe the forces that we see around us and determine the best unifying theory for those interactions.
that's it.
theology isn't my thing. weather its jesus thing or anti-religion/god theology, they are both based on emotion and not logic.
I ought to leave you to talk it over with Arach but I have to point out that you are making a very big and erroneous assumption here - that the gradual assemblage of evidence to get to the final leap of faith is itself blind faith because it ignores that the 'evidence' that you are wadding together as a way of climbing up to Ceiling -cat is invalid, wrong, or incorrect, and it takes Blind Faith to ignore the arguments that show it to be so.
I ought to leave you to talk it over with Arach but I have to point out that you are making a very big and erroneous assumption here - that the gradual assemblage of evidence to get to the final leap of faith is itself blind faith because it ignores that the 'evidence' that you are wadding together as a way of climbing up to Ceiling -cat is invalid, wrong, or incorrect, and it takes Blind Faith to ignore the arguments that show it to be so.
Gradual assemblage of “evidence”?
No, I dont think I said that.
“Gradual assemblage of “faith” in believing the existence of a creating force, based on our observation and using our logic and intelligence”, is perhaps a better way to put what I said.
yes. describe the forces that we see around us and determine the best unifying theory for those interactions.
that's it.
theology isn't my thing. weather its jesus thing or anti-religion/god theology, they are both based on emotion and not logic.
Both logic and emotion vary from person to person.
What’s logical to you, may not be logical to someone else, for example.
In terms of faith and theology, You make your choices based on your logic, others make their choices based on their logic.
We can discuss how we reach to our conclusions and share our thoughts but we can’t call each other right or wrong, because we really don’t know. And hence, we shall wait and we will probably see.
what he is saying is that he gets to turn away any evidence that isn't in line with the central theme (I call dogma) of anti-religious/god. basically he feels his sect of atheism knows whats best and that we need to be "less sloppy" in we how spin the universe. Soley based on the truth, or sort-a the truth, affecting his everyday life.
basically he saying, if it doesn't matter; why give them anything?
he doesn't understand that we are just figuring it out and these tweener steps are the evolution of knowledge.
Both logic and emotion vary from person to person.
What’s logical to you, may not be logical to someone else, for example.
In terms of faith and theology, You make your choices based on your logic, others make their choices based on their logic.
We can discuss how we reach to our conclusions and share our thoughts but we can’t call each other right or wrong, because we really don’t know. And hence, we shall wait and we will probably see.
true. but we can't have clearly less valid claims being compared to more valid claims like they are on equal footing. It serves us no purpose making it up as we go along.
All i ask is that we compare claims side by side to see what one is more, less, or if they are indeed equal validity. for example putting down a rabbit dog or risking the life of a rescuer for a horse. who's logic gets to dictate the next course of action?
true. but we can't have clearly less valid claims being compared to more valid claims like they are on equal footing. It serves us no purpose making it up as we go along.
All i ask is that we compare claims side by side to see what one is more, less, or if they are indeed equal validity. for example putting down a rabbit dog or risking the life of a rescuer for a horse. who's logic gets to dictate the next course of action?
I don’t see a claim being made here.
If I say, “I am Jesus Christ”, then yes that’s a claim I am making, for which you are obliged to demand an evidence.
However, when I believe in the existence of God based on faith, then how is this making a claim?
If I say, “I am Jesus Christ”, then yes that’s a claim I am making, for which you are obliged to demand an evidence.
However, when I believe in the existence of God based on faith, then how is this making a claim?
I think you are hiding behind "faith". "I believe" isn't a measure we judge claims on. If I only needed faith to determine if its valid I would join tran' sect of anti-religion/god. and bring my message to the world thus saving them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
