Mageth

Didn't we have this discussion on another thread, and didn't you more or less agree there that where there was "reason" (to believe), there was not faith?

I don't see how being "convinced" that something is true is in any way compatible with having "faith", as the term is being used here, in that something being true.

Thomas was convinced by seeing; Jesus praised those who believe without seeing (faith).

Naked Ape

If we once had faith, and lost it, would we have faith antibodies now? Like the notion that believing something just because you were told to, when that something is devoid of supporting facts, or perhaps in the presence of facts to the contrary, is a bad thing?

Cheers,

Naked Ape

Mageth

Faith, I'll provide a couple of quotes from you on the other thread (emphasis mine):

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...90#post1636390

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...90#post1636790

Faith

I'm not arguing that point, Mageth. Webster's defines "convinced", in part, as persuaded by argument to belief. There is another definition regarding "proving".

I took Magus' statement as him being persuaded in his faith beyond the point of wishing but stopping short of proving. (Sorry if I'm misrepresenting what you wrote, Magus.)

Obviously if there is proof, faith is replaced by knowledge.

Mageth

I don't see how one could be convinced short of thinking one had sufficient "proof".

The first quote of yours I provided seems to indicate that you agree with my take on the use of "convinced", as I'd say certainty strongly implies being convinced, and uncertainty the opposite.

Biff the unclean

You have that backwards. It's those who have it that don't understand it.
Faith, religious faith that is, is nothing but gullibility, credulity. If the gullible understood their own gullibility they would raise above it (note all the ex-Theists on this board who have done that very thing) and cease being gullible.
"Gullibility can move mountains"? Not likely.

jdlongmire

...not if you posit faith as innate...

John the Non-Baptist

I'm glad the police department's detectives division doesn't rely on faith to solve murders.

Lieutenant: But Captain, there's absolutely no evidence that connects John the Non-Baptist to this murder!

Captain: Nevertheless, I believe it to be true.

jdlongmire

...and I'm glad governments don't use reason to justify murdering millions...oh, wait a minute...

...reason without faith is deadly... and vice versa...

King Rat

I'm glad you included the word posit. I absolutely agree that the only way to resolve the two contradictory thoughts you posted earlier is through faith. What I do not understand is why you think this is in some way a positive thing. Fill the gas tank of your car with faith and see how far you get. Use faith to clean your floors and see how clean they get. Use faith to get to the moon and see how close you get. Use faith to balance your checkbook and see how far into the black you get. Use faith to heal your cancer and see how long you live. Use faith to cheat death and see if you end up just as dead as everybody else.

I do not agree with your posit that faith is innate. Faith is the result of brain damage induced by forcing your normally reasonable, logical brain to accept that which contradicts reality and experience.