7Likes
March 12th, 2013, 09:12 PM
Isnt faith: an Assumption?
"Assume isn't only used to mean accept as truth without checking, it also means take on the form of. It might be safer if you don't assume that the vampire standing in front of you isn't merely a person assuming that form." -i got this from an internet dictionary
No. Faith is a lot more than an assumption. You can posit an assumption for the purposes of constructing a particular argument or conducting a scientific analysis. You can't do this with faith.
Faith is defined in the Oxford dictionaries as "complete trust or confidence in someone or something". An assumption can be temporary, conditional, tentative, provisional ..... no trust, no confidence at all, let alone complete trust.
It is true that people can have unquestioned assumptions and/or unquestioned faith, but that doesn't mean that the two words mean the same thing.
It is not easy to define faith as it is imaginary.
It is an idea that has evolved over the centuries from the pagan cults to modern religion to science.
From the theistical point of view it is the idea to get uncertainties into the heads of children, who know no better, for the sake of compelling them to obey.
From the deistical point of view it is the idea that a person should believe in a divinity but should be mentally faithful only to himself.
From the atheistic point of view it is the idea that the progressive knowledge of man alone with the aid of science can promote a better world.
The monotheistic system of faith represents a triumph of the irrational over the rational and proves only that the human mind is receptive of such deceit. So there is faith in miracles. There is faith in angels. There is faith in a mystical creation; in Eve and the apple; in a man rather than god; in the death of that man who became a god; in a form of arithmetic which says that 3 make 1 and 1 make 3.
Now which do you have faith in: Science or religion?
Education is the key, however there is no faith involved, you cant have faith that facts are fact, now can you. You can only have facts.Originally Posted by ox
And atheism has no point of view, it is merely the lack of belief in another persons unproven imaginings, that is all it is.
So I fixed it for you.
I think Lynx got it.
Faith is a provisional assumption. It is built upon something like experience or trust. I have faith that my wife will not cheat on me because our experience together has led me to trust her. I couldn't have that faith in someone I didn't know. It would just be an assumption; baseless.
When it comes to religion, I think people develop faith based on the scripture they read and experiences which they believe are divine in nature. You can, of course, build faith on a very weak base. I still think it has to be rooted in something real, which an assumption does not.
The Tibetans have faith that their saints can fly. They also have faith that mountains can fly. So off they go to Mount Kailas to gain merit for this life and the next while it is still there. Likewise the Christians have faith that Noah's Ark still lies on the slopes of Mount Ararat. So off they go, year after year to find it. Still waiting.
Immune as they are to rational thought, theists persist in faith.
Many terms are open to interpretation. Some people apply the term faith to what is actually ignorance in the face of all evidence. I think the term faith has suffered a bit from this perversion. It's become a bit of a dirty word to logical people.
Believing in something (right or wrongly) without any evidence.
Point 1) The existence of God can never be proven,
Point 2) If the existence of God can never be proven, Faith will always, and can only be an Assumption,
Combining point 1) and 2), isn't it right to confirm that Faith will always, and can only be an Assumption?
To a person of faith, God is not an assumption. People don't have faith that a god exists, they have faith in a god that already exists for them. Why pray to or live in fear of an assumption?
The biblical definition of faith » THE GLORY LAND
To understand Faith as it pertains to a believer it helps to look at theological interpretations. Faith is one of three key concepts (along with Hope and Love) discussed in the Bible that are parts of the believer's relationship with God and man. Faith gives the believer strength to act on what he / she sees as the will of God.
Define what you mean.
Yes, God exists, No god does not exist. only one can be true, it cant be yes, exist for him, no does not exist for her. no such thing.
Keep in mind that for some people, what are mysteries of the Earth to them (scientific knowledge to some of us) ARE proof of God. It may be highly fallible reasoning to us, but not to them.
It chills me to the bone that the faith shown this week in the election of Pope Francis will determine the behaviour of over 1 billion people on this planet, including even myself to some extent or other as a lapsed but still nominal catholic. I can only describe it as being a bit like getting over a cold but still having a touch of catarrh. I would like to wash it all out of my head but I know it's impossible because faith is a mental virus and no antidote has yet been found.
For a start I simply don't understand why the cardinals who were supposed to have been directed by the 'holy spirit' were unable to make an instant decision as to who would succeed Benedict XV1 once they had all been locked into the room together (except of course there is no such holy spirit).
Why does God being all supreme demand that only one man on earth do all his business? That is a medieval fantasy.
Why should we have any faith in any pope? I don't know of any that could be described as saints. Pope Innocent V111 in 1484 issued a bull that led to witch-finding and the execution of countless women and girls. Pope Pius X in 1907 banned the study of any books critical to the Church. Pope Pius X11 in 1945 ensured that no catholic was ever excommunicated after committing crimes of genocide. Why did Pope Francis fail to speak out against human rights abuses in the military dictatorship in Argentina (1970-80)?
Hindsight should tell us that popery does not work, and that the collective understanding of the human race as a whole is the only way. The evil of monotheism is at the centre of our culture and we need to cleanse ourselves of it.
Simple, it's no longer faith when you can see god, hear god, sense god.Define what you mean.
So they saw/heared god?
and how certian are the evidence that it could not be something else? lol r theyre any reliable sources you have to back it up? :#
Correct! That's called schizophrenia.Simple, it's no longer faith when you can see god, hear god, sense god.Define what you mean.
so all belivers in religeon that has god have Schizophrenia?Correct! That's called schizophrenia.Simple, it's no longer faith when you can see god, hear god, sense god.Define what you mean.
or just those who seen/heard it/them(god/s)?
So you believe it's a case of when a man hears voices and attributes them to the divine, he is a normal. But when a man hears voices and doesn't attribute them to the divine he's crazy, or are they both normal or both crazy. Which!so all belivers in religeon that has god have Schizophrenia?Correct! That's called schizophrenia.Simple, it's no longer faith when you can see god, hear god, sense god.Define what you mean.
or just those who seen/heard it/them(god/s)?
I posted up a thread trying to ascertain the very reason why a religious person believes that they see, feel, and hear god, no one has been able to show how their belief is different from a schizophrenic.
The scientific study of religion.
So the answer to your question is only those that claim a divine connection.
If I'm a monotheist and I swear that the one and only true God spoke to me then does that divinity represent my theistic religion's god? Would it not represent the god for all monotheist religions? The reason I say this is because if a Muslim hears God then it's Allah and if a Christian hears God then it's Yahweh or Christ or whatever. Why can't the God who speaks to certain individuals of different monotheistic religions just lay it on the line, tell them they're all mistaken and this is the way it is? I'm sure that probably happens in rare cases however.
Think about it, if God is talking to you then it's usually in the religion of your choice. If it's schizophrenics who hear God then why would a Muslim be right and a Christian wrong? Why doesn't a Christian hear God tell them to become a Muslim or vice versa? I wonder if the polytheistic schizophrenics hear more than one god? I'll wager they do.
Okay, we have been talking about: Since god cant be proven to exist.
Now what if, Since God cannot be disproven to not exist. (at least not yet, maybe someday, but not yet.)
So do you still consider them as schizophrenic?
wow.... this is the best comment I EVER READ BEFORE in this forum...
Fify.
It cannot be proven that the voice's any schizophrenic hears do not exist. So why do you consider those who hear god to be different, I don't.
And remember it is nonsensical to try and prove a negative.
I meant, since we can't prove God to either exist, or to not-exist, their belief may be true, right??
Since the existance of God has not been confirmed.
Yes it might be true, but the burden is always on the one claiming for a things existence. As the existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the said thing. It is nonsensical to ask for proof of non-existence.
We can't prove leprechauns exist, so the belief they may exist is true also right?? As is the belief that Fairies Orks, Dragons etc.. Exist right?? And even the one I just made up the Ohbaloo bird that lives on the dark side of the moon. these may also exist/ be true right?? Where does it end.
And lets not forget the are 3800 gods not including the millions of hindu gods. Which one do you require to exist. So for all myriad of imagined mythical creatures, gods are just a few more. Least they are all true, including santa and the tooth fairy.
hmm seems legit.
cleared things up abitIt is nonsensical to ask for proof of non-existence.
Unfortunately not even that argument works.
Lack of evidence when there should be evidence counts against the existence of god.
As does weight of probability.
This is an interesting point. The term "faith" doesn't necessarily mean belief in something without evidence. It can, certainly, but having faith in someone's abilities does not have to be blind. And does it even apply to those who believe in the face of mounds of evidence against a premise?
Theists tend to equivocate on the word's meaning when they claim, "even atheists have faith," as if faith in your brother's ability to kick a drug habit is the same as having faith in the existence of God. It's tiring--and, sadly, pointless--having to explain the differences to people who abuse the term in such a way.
To the OP: Faith, in the context of religion, is belief in God, and/or His doctrines. It isn't, as one poster paradoxically offered, "faith in a God that already exists for them." (Not only is this nonsensical, it doesn't actually address the question, as it posits the term itself as the definition of the term; ie "Faith is faith") It's not some vague property. It's just belief in God. That's all. There's no mystery here.
whats OP??
But true faith can only lie on assumption that God exists. But since no evidence shows there is one, where there must be if God exists.
But what if Christians say God exists, but there is no evidence he exists?
And what if they say that this part of science (evidence) does not apply to God?
Then they quote this "Omni-potency" and "that he controls his creation of nature and physics and science" and the verse about "2corintians 4:18 so we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."
wth.. the bible even counters this thread.
Originally Posted by jocular
Original Post or Original Poster.
Only true faith would remove God to a far enough point to disable any way of finding evidence.
That's an act of desperation, more than anything else...
I don't know what "true faith" is supposed to mean, or how it differs from faith as it has been defined in my post, so I can't really speak to that part of it. To the rest, I would say that faith can be based on an assumption, but it can also be based on personal experiences or misinformation. Assumption implies that no thought has gone into it, that whatever is assumed is considered self-evidently true.
Then they are apologists who shouldn't be taken seriously. For their argument to even make sense, one must accept their conceit that there is some realm beyond the material, and since there is no evidence for such a thing, there's no reason to believe it. Therefore their argument is nonsensical, and can be dismissed out of hand.But what if Christians say God exists, but there is no evidence he exists?
And what if they say that this part of science (evidence) does not apply to God?
Then they quote this "Omni-potency" and "that he controls his creation of nature and physics and science" and the verse about "2corintians 4:18 so we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."
In other words, they're just making stuff up to suit their beliefs. Unless they can show you that there's something beyond the material world, you have no reason to believe them when they say their god is outside of it.
What do you mean?wth.. the bible even counters this thread.
| « Intelligent Design | Physics and Hinduism: Sri Krishna the first to purport Conservation of Energy? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
