Faith

Regardless of the way "faith" is used, it still suggests steadfast determination to remain true, whether to God, or a promise, or a cause, or another person. It still implies unwavering belief without tangible evidence, and it requires allegiance, attachment, and trust.

I think while Christians won't claim to "know" God exists, many have the "experiential" evidence to support their belief that He does. They feel Him at work in their lives and therefore trust in His existence.

It's a powerful reason to have continued faith in God, the belief that it makes a difference.

And it matters not that the belief isn't objective or reasonable if, as Shaun said, belief motivates much the same as knowledge.

Yahzi

You've just defined certainty as both unobtainable and useless. Let me put it this way: your believe in the destructive power of the bat is indistinguishable from certainty.

This is the sort of fact that one is generally allowed to postulate as a given. When people's heads are crushed, they die. If you wish to dispute this widely accepted fact, I think you'll need to provide some evidence.

Just a note, since you've brought it up. My BA is in philosophy. I have, in fact, read Hume, among others.

But the claim that you don't know anything is, itself, a knowledge claim. If you truly do not know anything, then you cannot know that you do not know anything, because that would be knowing something.

"Certainity is 100% impossible" is a not a philosophical argument, it is the punch-line to a joke.

But if you stop thinking, then you will no longer think that reality is an illusion. And thus the Bat is triumphant!

Perhaps you should read Descartes. "I think, therefore I am," entails the corallory "I don't think, therefore I ain't." (And yes, I know that is a mistranslation, but frankly, it's close enough).

Tell that to the 100,000 Japanese vaporized by the A-bomb. They didn't believe in it: they didn't even know about it. But it was gosh-darned effective anyway.

Now you're using your special meaning of certainty, the one that is unobtainable and useless. The rest of us are willing to settle for a level of certainity equal to that with which we hold the proposition, "If your head is crushed like a rotten melon, you die."

Yahzi

That's the whole point, Faith.

Those boys that flew those planes into those buildings had plenty of belief. Plenty of it.

What makes you different from them? (Hint: you can't say because your beliefs are reasonable...)

Starboy

This is where Christians lie to themselves. They only have the same sorts of evidence that everyone else has for all the other beliefs that Christians disbelieve. This is not evidence for the Christian case. It is either ignorant or dishonest to claim so.

Starboy

Faith

Christians who believe God is working in their lives will hold onto that belief as the reason God must exist. When you believe that faith (of any kind) makes a difference, you're more likely to continue having that faith.

You misunderstood me if you think I am claiming this as evidence for the "Christian case". It's more evident of human nature, I'd say.


My faith doesn't entail killing those who worship differently. It doesn't include the belief that I will be rewarded in the afterlife with riches and a specified number of virgins for sacrificing my life to the glory of God.

But you're right...those men had plenty of faith too. No question about it.

Biff the unclean

You cannot defend "faith" by appealing to logic or empathy for your fellow man. "Faith" is following the rules because you believe they are from authority. "Faith" is trusting that that authority is 'good' no matter what actions it takes. "Faith" is, by it's very nature, amoral.

Those who follow the same "faith" you do have a history of persecuting those who worship differently from them that dates back to Acts of the Apostles. The had "faith" that this persecution was for the greater good. That it was doing the work of God who is 'all good.' After all God drowned every man, woman, child, infant and animal (except those that fit on a single boat) on the planet in an act of goodness…because they were evil.
The faith of the early Christians made it possible for them to murder Hellenists and Gnostics. The 'faith' of later Christians made it an act of goodness to murder Manichaeians, Albigensians, Moslems, Zoroasterians, Atheists and Jews. The 'faith' of more modern Christians made it an act of goodness to murder Witches, Protestants and Roman Catholics. And the Jews…always the Jews are murdered as an act of "faith."

I look at these boards at IIDB and I see the statement of 'faith' that mankind is totally depraved and deserves eternal damnation repeated every few days. A complete lack of empathy for their fellow man which in turn means a complete lack of morality. Their morality is replaced by a list of orders that are followed out of 'faith.' At the moment these rules are interpreted to mean "don't kill those who worship differently." But that is just at this moment. In the past this same 'faith' in the same word, of the same God, has said that it was good and moral to kill millions.
"Faith" is following orders, and calling them "good" no matter what they tell you to do. To have faith one must divorce themselves from their own humanity.

Yahzi

And why doesn't it? If you will look closely, you will see that the above excuse is really a way of asserting that your faith is somehow more "reasonable" than theirs.

So we see that faith is neutral: it can be bad or good. So now the question is, how do you determine if a particular faith is bad or good? The answer, of course, is that you resort to reason.

But once we have started judging faiths by reason - once we have accepted that faith must always be subservient to reason - then your entire argument for faith collapses.

You want us to let your cow out of the pasture, while keeping all those dangerous bulls behind the fence. But to us farmers, they are all just cattle, and if you let any of them out of the fence, sooner or later they eat all the flowers in your garden.

Mageth

Hbr 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],

Hbr 11:29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry [land]: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. 32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and [of] Barak, and [of] Samson, and [of] Jephthae; [of] David also, and Samuel, and [of] the prophets: 33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.


Biblical, Christian faith seems to have the potential to require quite a bit of violence of its followers, including occasionally killing those who "worship differently" and even your own son, if God asks you to.

Faith

The question was what makes me different from the boys who flew their planes into the WTC. The answer is I display my faith non-violently and don't persecute others for their beliefs.

I was speaking for myself only. I made no judgment that I am more "reasonable" in my faith than they. And I certainly wasn't claiming to be the universal voice of Christianity (early, modern or otherwise) speaking out in justification of all past atrocities committed by Christians.



I'm not sure I understand the analogy. I want only to be shown respect for my beliefs the same way I respect others for theirs, and nothing more.

Ellis14

Why do you decide that faith should be acted upon non-violently? That sounds like a reason-based decision to me. You have no justification for using reason after faith. The problem is the same:

"I have a belief which gives me the right to kill people, but I won't"

->

"I have a belief which gives me the right to kill people, but I will."

Why not just apply reason before faith and conclude that the belief itself is flawed in the first place?