Freethought & Rationalism Archive

critical thinking made ez · 01-02-2002, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani:
[QB]Dear Emuse,
You said:
[/b]

Try this one on for size:

Belief is intellectual assent for that which we know.
Faith is belief buttressed by the will to act bodily.

Interesting!

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

rainbow walking · 01-02-2002, 03:40 PM

CTME: Rainbow Walking:
I really don’t think I can address your last post as it really doesn’t make any logical sense.

rw: Then do me the courtesy of demonstrating the precise illogic in it.

CTME: It appears you don’t understand even the basics of what I am discussing here.

rw: Then indulge me here and elucidate exactly where I have misunderstood your premises.

CTME: If you could just be a little more open to other concepts. I could continue but I feel I am beating a dead horse due to the mass of Christian Doctrine you can't suspend long enough to allow other information to register.

rw: What other concepts do you wish me to consider? I have been open and considerate of your every postulate but not in agreement. The mass of biblical doctrine I have presented in response to your erroneous definitions of faith and their further misapplication to conversion has more than answered your claims, it has rendered them useless. If you have further information to register now would be a good time to register it.

critical thinking made ez · 01-02-2002, 03:42 PM

I have come to the conclusion that the word Faith has 2 different meanings. One, I feel being a misuse of the word.
1. Faith is a belief without supporting evidence.
2. Faith is a belief with supporting evidence.

Of course, the misused one is number (1)
It is the one used often in the Bible to describe people as they saw evidence and their “faith” grew.
The authors should have used the word “belief” instead of Faith in those instances. One can increase their belief with additional proof. But if one has Faith as defined in number (1), then no amount of evidence would change the fact that either one has faith or one doesn’t have faith. Belief is affected by evidence not faith.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

Albert Cipriani · 01-02-2002, 03:59 PM

Quote:

1. Faith is a belief without supporting evidence.

That qualifies as a good-as-any definition of insanity. "Don't bother me with the facts. I know what I know!"

Faith can be lost. As evidence mounts against the belief, the first casualty is Faith, i.e. the willingness to act on the belief. Tho the belief may persist to the day they die, such folk are catatonic Theists, functionally no different than atheists. -- Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

critical thinking made ez · 01-02-2002, 05:57 PM

Albert, point well taken. I will revise.

I am now concluding that the word Faith has 2 different meanings. One, I feel being a misuse of the word.
1. Faith is a belief without material evidence nor supporting evidence.
2. Faith is a belief without material evidence but with supporting evidence. (misused)

Now attack again.

E_muse · 01-02-2002, 07:01 PM

CTME - thank you for enlarging upon your arguement. Now I shall attempt a reply!

Quote:

CTME:

Agreed, let us define the usage of the word faith of which I�m centering my arguments on. They are not centered on the normal use of the word Faith as used in many instances. I am confining it to just the real issue of the Faith that Saves. The faith that is the core to all Christians who are instructed to have this faith in order to be saved, in order to have everlasting life.
Can we agree that the faith which is being described above is the faith that Jesus is God and the acceptance of the belief?

I think that the average Christian will agree that this would be a requirement in being Saved and to obtain everlasting life. I will assume for the rest of my argument that we will all agree to this premise.

E_muse:

What you seem to be saying here is that you are trying to understand faith as it relates to religious belief. We could simplify this by saying that your definition of faith applies to belief in God. You then seem to be suggesting that religious belief cannot involve any supporting evidence.

You said above, 'Let us' define what faith means, however you are then trying to dictate how we must all define it by saying that we cannot allow any supporting evidence.

The writer of Hebrews, in chapter 11:1 defines faith as being totally convinced of things which we cannot see. O.K? The confidence of things not seen.

God is not seen and so any belief in him is by faith. This is simply a fact. However, this does not mean that people's faith cannot be supported, strengthened or weakened by what they are able to see.

Your attempted definition seems to be dictating that, in order for faith in God to be genuine, there must be absolutely no evidence available which would support such a belief.

Going back to Hebrews 11:1, we find a difficulty as the writer refers to faith as the evidence of things not seen. He seems to be suggesting that people's faith in God is one evidence for God or anything which God promises. He then gives a long list of ways in which people's faith has dictated their actions.

Also, what you seem to be forgetting is that, according to Biblical teaching at least, what is seen is believed to have been created by that which is not seen - by God.

So the apostle Paul goes on to say that God's invisible qualities are revealed in the world around us.

I do have a problem - and would even perceive it as arrogant - if you were to try and insist that your attempted definition of faith is the only true one! Please try and stick to your initial intention and allow a definition of faith to grow out of what everyone is saying on the thread.

Quote:

CTME:

Before going on any further I will address several people who have brought up the argument of different kinds of faith, and indeed faith that can grow weak, be great, strengthen at evidence as in the case of the Apostles. I am not addressing the mistaken meaning given to the word faith by these passages. It will become apparent that the writer of these books had no clue as to the proper use of the word faith. However, this is moot issue that will be revealed once we know how God would use Faith in a regards to man.

E_muse:

Well, if it is so apparent please make it plain. But plain to who? I shall come back to this.

Also, please don't get the impression that people won't grasp your point of view simply because they are indoctrinated.

If there is one person whom I trust and whom I know never lies to me, it is my wife of ten years.

She is a strong believer but has a very simple and accepting faith in God. I sometimes get a little too critical of her because she doesn't think as deeply as me - and she would say this - this isn't just my judgement of her.

As far back as she can remember she has always believed in God and prayed. However, she was brought up in a totally non Christian home and never went to Church. I have talked to her about this and she simply cannot explain it. She cannot put a finger on anything which caused her to believe in God or caused her to pray - it's just that her belief has always been there and her committment to Christianity has stemmed out of that.

People sometimes engage in religious activity because it's teaching seems to explain and make sense of their experience - not because they are being indoctrinated.

Quote:

CTME:

1. God gives every man a fair chance at becoming a believer.
I feel most Christians will agree to this statement. We won�t include a handful that he may indeed not give the chance to since it would not change the argument I�m making. So if we included the words �almost every man� it would still work.

E_muse:

This could be true - but who judges what is fair? Fair by whose standards?

Also, according to Biblical teaching (if this is what we are still examining), that fair chance involves the actions of the Church. 'Go and make disciples.... these signs will follow those who believe....' and so on.

Quote:

CTME:

2. In giving man, this chance at believing, most of you have agreed that some amount of proof, evidence, actions, testimony, witness to a miracle, experience etc (we�ll call them occurrences for the rest of the argument) has played a part in forming the foundation to having the faith.

E_muse:

Of course. All faith is based upon some experience - but not necessarily proof.

My experiences of the world are entirely subjective - they exist only in my brain. It is my brain (or something which goes on in what I experience as my head) which gives me the impression that all my experiences correlate to an objective reality - or something outside myself. However, it is only what my brain is telling me and I can never step out of myself to test this!!

However, I believe that what my brain is telling me is true. I have put my faith in that belief. My faith is evidenced by the fact that I am typing this reply to you - I believe that you exist as an entity seperate from me and I am confident enough to act on that belief. However, I can never prove it to you. That's one of the limitations of reason - it can't dictate reality - it can only seek to understand it.

Quote:

CTME:

a. The faith you now have did not exist before such occurrences in your life.

E_muse:

It probably differs from person to person. I think that individual experiences prevent us from viewing religious conversion in a black and white way. However, what it can lead us to accept is that, whatever has supported a person's belief, humans have the capacity to believe and need to accept the existence of things which they can neither prove or see.

Quote:

CTME:

3. You have proven to yourself that these occurrences prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is God.
4. God create these occurrences in your life as you do believe that in premise (1) that God gives everyone a chance to believe. You have admitted that the chance he gives are based on these occurrences. Yet you the individual, had to make the final call on whether they constituted valid proof enough for your new-found Faith. You didn�t just start believing without a certain amount or degree of these occurrences.

E_muse:

Not sure here. As I've said, my wife doesn't know when she started believing in God or why!

You cannot dictate what has caused belief in someone in an attempt to prove what you already want to believe about the nature of faith.

Quote:

CTME:

Here comes the problem and the Question ...
If God gives everyone a chance to have faith under the previous premises, why doesn�t it occur to the millions that don�t believe? Millions die every year who would tell you that they never had enough proof (occurrences).

E_muse:

And this goes back to my previous question - apparent to whom?

The fact that, if God exists, he would reveal himself to some and not others has been a struggle for many years.

During the Enlightenment, the idea that God 'privileged' a few by special revelation was rejected on moral grounds. God caused moral problems because revelation was not universal. It was referred to as the 'scandal of peculiarity'.

The final decision was that knowledge of anything - including God - must be universally accessible, in all cultures, historical contexts and geographical regions.

Enlightenment thinkers then turned to reason and taught that knowledge rests upon the 'necessary' truths of reason.

This has influenced scientific thinking, which will only accept as true that which is directly testable and observable. In order for something to be considered true it must be possible for all people to experience it through their own efforts or must be able to justify it through the process of rational deduction. However, rationalism itself has been made accountable to something which can be universally experienced - that which is observable.

However, rationalism does not escape the perils of elitism.

Instead of priests, society could be ruled over by an academic elite who claim that their rationalisation of the world represents truth. In some ways it is potentially more elitist because at least faith in God does not seem to depend upon culture or academic ability. 'God says...' is replaced with 'Scientists say...'.

It is the pronouncement of this site to demonstrate that, in terms of God, the King has no clothes. In short, because rational deduction can do away with the notion of God and because God cannot be universally experienced God does not exist.

Are theists deliberately setting out to mislead? Is it acceptable to claim that the process of rational deduction is the only means of establishing truth? Can you 'know' something before having evidence for it?

Quote:

CTME:

This is a clear violation of Gods own word where he clearly tells us that every man is given a chance. There can not be any blame set on man for not having faith if the initial occurrences did not prove it to the individual�s own mental acceptance.

E_muse:

Your statement only holds true if all the available evidence offers conclusive and absolute proof that God does not exist. This also creates the sense that the sole burden of proof lies with God and that we should not shift the way we think.

Could it be that a certain element of desire on our part should be involved. If we really want God, we will set out to find him.

Quote:

CTME:

Therefore Faith, if we assume that every man is given a fair opportunity to believe, must obtain Faith through a different method than just these occurrences. And if faith doesn�t come by a level of proof, then it must come in another form. The problem is what form?

E_muse:

People excercise faith every day in ways which they don't realise. They accept all their experiences as real. They believe that what their brain is telling them is true.

Quote:

CTME:

To believe in something with no level of proof is moronic. Yet we are not allowed any level of proof since many of us are holding out for solid proof before having faith, yet all religious scholars agree, that there is no conclusive proof to the existence of God, so how can we be expected to have the Faith? You Christians have faith based on some level of proof you are satisfied with.

Woah! You've said that true faith cannot involve proof - you've stated this as what you perceive to be the true defintion - and now you're saying that you're holding out for solid proof before you have faith! You're placing a condition on your own willingness to believe which contradicts your own definition of faith. That sounds confused to me.

No, faith isn't proof based. I've already argued that faith is being confident of something you can't see. The question then is, how can you be sure of something you can't see?

According to Hebrews 11, the unseen is substanciated when people are prepared to act upon a belief in it - if that makes sense. Faith - which has been rightly pointed out is action based - is the evidence for the unseen.

Quote:

CTME:

Here comes the next problem. If Faith cannot be given by the occurrences / proof, then those who claim to have faith by these means have a False Faith. They really believe by proof, not faith. For without the proof your faith is dead.

People have a sense that there is something 'out there'. Something which goes beyond this world and was responsible for it.

Either they are imagining it or their experiences relate to an objective reality. Either way, one must excercise faith.

Quote:

CTME:

Therefore it is impossible for you to follow the biblical direction to live by faith. Impossible for you to be saved by your Faith since you have a false faith, you live by proof, you are saved by Jesus by your proof of the faith.

But you've already said that you're holding out for more proof - this being true you are attempting a false faith yourself.

I think it would be helpful to drop this 'absolute proof' idea. No one lives on the basis of absolute proof - they choose to accept the validity of their experiences.

Quote:

CTME:

Since I have now made my argument for faith not being able to involve any type of personal occurrences or proof,

E_muse:

I'm afraid that to me, the whole arguement seems absurd. If any faith I have cannot rest on any 'presonal occurence' then the only way for me to have true faith is to cease to exist! I've got to be involved somewhere haven't I?

All beliefs are informed by something - even if they're subjective! The fact is that we must all to some degree trust our experiences and cannot base our decisions on absolute proof.

Quote:

CTME:

A person would only be able to acquire Faith through a revelation and it must happen to all men sometime before their death. The person that it happens to must recognize that this is a direct appeal from God and it must be clear to the point that the rejection could not be made by a lack of evidence/belief.

This is God's moral offence again.

What part do we play in receving this revelation? Has God left enough evidence lying around for us to think, 'Mmmm, I wonder?' and the rest is up to us? I don't claim to be able to answer all of this, I'm simply encouraging debate.

Quote:

CTME:

How else could Faith be offered to every man to a point where there is no doubt that it is the truth and it is from God. Anything less would not be a fair chance.

E_muse:

Your defintion of fair seems to state that God must adhere to everyone's demands for proof.

Theists find it difficult to understand that atheistis can see no evidence for God. It is obvious to them. Likewise atheists cannot believe that theists find it so hard to see that their king has no clothes.

It all seems to relate to perception.

To sum up ... you're saying that true faith must not involve evidence of any kind. However, you're then saying that you will only believe yourself on the basis of more evidence.

At least... that's how it appears to me

Quote:

...Edited in order to develop arguements...

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Ted Hoffman · 01-03-2002, 05:30 AM

E_muse, Albert T. T. C. (whatever that means) and RW, I believe U guys are wasting CTME's time and avoiding "the issue", the definition of faith is easily available in any dictionary. I will provide U with the f=definitions from encarta and dictionary.com.
Then I will summarise. Granted the word has been misused before but it CERTAINLY cannot be belief supported by evidence. Any attempt to define faith as such is insincere and dishonest.

The definitions that appear in bold are the ones that are of relevance for this discussion, Please lets proceed

Encarta's definition:
faith [fayth ] (plural faiths) noun

1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

2. RELIGION religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it

3. RELIGION trust in God: belief in and devotion to God Her faith is unwavering.

4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles people of different political faiths

5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something

[13th century. Via Old French feid from Latin fides "trust, belief" (source of English confide and fealty). Ultimately from an Indo-European word that is also the ancestor of English federal.]

keep faith with somebody or something to be loyal or true to a person or promise on faith without demanding proof

dictionary.com's definition

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
4. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
5. A set of principles or beliefs.

especially . The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

Ted Hoffman · 01-03-2002, 05:33 AM

E_muse, Albert T. T. C. (whatever that means) and RW, I believe U guys are wasting CTME's time and avoiding "the issue", the definition of faith is easily available in any dictionary. I will provide U with the f=definitions from encarta and dictionary.com.
Then I will summarise. Granted the word has been misused before but it CERTAINLY cannot be belief supported by evidence. Any attempt to define faith as such is insincere and dishonest.
What about facts? What about proof? Jesus, faith does not require proof. Doubting Thomas or no doubting Thomas

The definitions that appear in bold are the ones that are of relevance for this discussion, Please lets proceed

Encarta's definition:
faith [fayth ] (plural faiths) noun

1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

2. RELIGION religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it

3. RELIGION trust in God: belief in and devotion to God Her faith is unwavering.

4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles people of different political faiths

5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something

[13th century. Via Old French feid from Latin fides "trust, belief" (source of English confide and fealty). Ultimately from an Indo-European word that is also the ancestor of English federal.]

keep faith with somebody or something to be loyal or true to a person or promise on faith without demanding proof

dictionary.com's definition

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
4. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
5. A set of principles or beliefs.

especially . The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

Trusting acceptance are the keywords gentlemen

Trusting acceptance

critical thinking made ez · 01-03-2002, 08:10 AM

Well, I have made an earnest attempt at defining Faith as something that doesn’t require any supporting evidence nor Logical proof, nor material evidence. I now must concede to the Christians on this post that have proven to me that while Faith doesn’t require logical proof nor material evidence, it does require supporting evidence. They have gone to great lengths to prove this point and it does make sense when referenced to the many uses of the word in the Bible. I was so hoping that faith would not be based on something as subjective as an individual’s interpretation of evidence. For I have met very educated people who believe erroneous beliefs based on what they consider “supporting evidence” but is, in fact, wrong. I hate that I would be forced to endure a lotto winner claiming that God allowed him to win, therefore he exists…on and on. People can claim supporting evidence then believe anything that could be concluded from those facts, right or wrongly.

I can now claim that because my roof is leaking, and I had a fight with a friend, my friend has a drill and a ladder in his garage. I could have faith that he climbed up there and drilled a hole in the roof. I then will bet my eternal life on those supporting evidences.

You have made Faith a totally worthless effort. Indeed, you have convinced me that no man should have faith in anything that puts my life/soul at risk. Faith should only be used in situations that involve me accepting the consequences if my Faith has been misplaced. Eternal life is too important to risk on having faith. It must demand proof.

Thank you Rambow Walker and E_muse for helping me to eliminate the use of Faith in my search for God. Faith is too risky a method.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-02-2002, 03:40 PM	#32
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	CTME: Rainbow Walking: I really don’t think I can address your last post as it really doesn’t make any logical sense. rw: Then do me the courtesy of demonstrating the precise illogic in it. CTME: It appears you don’t understand even the basics of what I am discussing here. rw: Then indulge me here and elucidate exactly where I have misunderstood your premises. CTME: If you could just be a little more open to other concepts. I could continue but I feel I am beating a dead horse due to the mass of Christian Doctrine you can't suspend long enough to allow other information to register. rw: What other concepts do you wish me to consider? I have been open and considerate of your every postulate but not in agreement. The mass of biblical doctrine I have presented in response to your erroneous definitions of faith and their further misapplication to conversion has more than answered your claims, it has rendered them useless. If you have further information to register now would be a good time to register it.

01-02-2002, 03:42 PM	#33
critical thinking made ez Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: San Antonio TX Posts: 536	I have come to the conclusion that the word Faith has 2 different meanings. One, I feel being a misuse of the word. 1. Faith is a belief without supporting evidence. 2. Faith is a belief with supporting evidence. Of course, the misused one is number (1) It is the one used often in the Bible to describe people as they saw evidence and their “faith” grew. The authors should have used the word “belief” instead of Faith in those instances. One can increase their belief with additional proof. But if one has Faith as defined in number (1), then no amount of evidence would change the fact that either one has faith or one doesn’t have faith. Belief is affected by evidence not faith. [ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

01-02-2002, 05:57 PM	#35
critical thinking made ez Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: San Antonio TX Posts: 536	Albert, point well taken. I will revise. I am now concluding that the word Faith has 2 different meanings. One, I feel being a misuse of the word. 1. Faith is a belief without material evidence nor supporting evidence. 2. Faith is a belief without material evidence but with supporting evidence. (misused) Now attack again.

01-03-2002, 05:30 AM	#37
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	E_muse, Albert T. T. C. (whatever that means) and RW, I believe U guys are wasting CTME's time and avoiding "the issue", the definition of faith is easily available in any dictionary. I will provide U with the f=definitions from encarta and dictionary.com. Then I will summarise. Granted the word has been misused before but it CERTAINLY cannot be belief supported by evidence. Any attempt to define faith as such is insincere and dishonest. The definitions that appear in bold are the ones that are of relevance for this discussion, Please lets proceed Encarta's definition: faith [fayth ] (plural faiths) noun 1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof 2. RELIGION religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it 3. RELIGION trust in God: belief in and devotion to God Her faith is unwavering. 4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles people of different political faiths 5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something [13th century. Via Old French feid from Latin fides "trust, belief" (source of English confide and fealty). Ultimately from an Indo-European word that is also the ancestor of English federal.] keep faith with somebody or something to be loyal or true to a person or promise on faith without demanding proof dictionary.com's definition 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 4. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 5. A set of principles or beliefs. especially . The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

01-03-2002, 05:33 AM	#38
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	E_muse, Albert T. T. C. (whatever that means) and RW, I believe U guys are wasting CTME's time and avoiding "the issue", the definition of faith is easily available in any dictionary. I will provide U with the f=definitions from encarta and dictionary.com. Then I will summarise. Granted the word has been misused before but it CERTAINLY cannot be belief supported by evidence. Any attempt to define faith as such is insincere and dishonest. What about facts? What about proof? Jesus, faith does not require proof. Doubting Thomas or no doubting Thomas The definitions that appear in bold are the ones that are of relevance for this discussion, Please lets proceed Encarta's definition: faith [fayth ] (plural faiths) noun 1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof 2. RELIGION religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it 3. RELIGION trust in God: belief in and devotion to God Her faith is unwavering. 4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles people of different political faiths 5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something [13th century. Via Old French feid from Latin fides "trust, belief" (source of English confide and fealty). Ultimately from an Indo-European word that is also the ancestor of English federal.] keep faith with somebody or something to be loyal or true to a person or promise on faith without demanding proof dictionary.com's definition 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 4. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 5. A set of principles or beliefs. especially . The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. Trusting acceptance are the keywords gentlemen Trusting acceptance

01-03-2002, 08:10 AM	#39
critical thinking made ez Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: San Antonio TX Posts: 536	Well, I have made an earnest attempt at defining Faith as something that doesn’t require any supporting evidence nor Logical proof, nor material evidence. I now must concede to the Christians on this post that have proven to me that while Faith doesn’t require logical proof nor material evidence, it does require supporting evidence. They have gone to great lengths to prove this point and it does make sense when referenced to the many uses of the word in the Bible. I was so hoping that faith would not be based on something as subjective as an individual’s interpretation of evidence. For I have met very educated people who believe erroneous beliefs based on what they consider “supporting evidence” but is, in fact, wrong. I hate that I would be forced to endure a lotto winner claiming that God allowed him to win, therefore he exists…on and on. People can claim supporting evidence then believe anything that could be concluded from those facts, right or wrongly. I can now claim that because my roof is leaking, and I had a fight with a friend, my friend has a drill and a ladder in his garage. I could have faith that he climbed up there and drilled a hole in the roof. I then will bet my eternal life on those supporting evidences. You have made Faith a totally worthless effort. Indeed, you have convinced me that no man should have faith in anything that puts my life/soul at risk. Faith should only be used in situations that involve me accepting the consequences if my Faith has been misplaced. Eternal life is too important to risk on having faith. It must demand proof. Thank you Rambow Walker and E_muse for helping me to eliminate the use of Faith in my search for God. Faith is too risky a method.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.