Merriam-Webster's definition of faith

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Infohawk, you offer a topic for debate.



In your topic you offer a problem and a solution.

You offer no proof of your belief, and thus there is

no reason to believe it.



In your own reasoning, that makes you a person of faith,

unable to respond to reason, and thus unable to explain

anything to those of us who believe in reason, and unfortunately

I can not show you how unreasonable you are being.





My solution is not to marginallize you but ask that you accept

the flaw in your faith, and the flaw in others with different faith.





:gift:

I have reason to believe what I do. Proof do not have to be a bloody glove or a statistical analysis. But there must be reasons. For example, in a court of law, for example, the judge will tell you: you see snow on the ground, but you did not see snow fall, you can reason that snow fell that night even though you did not see it. The thing is faithful do not need reasons! This is the problem!

For example, I believe faithful (like yourself apparently) cannot be communicated with because they are not reasonable. If you have faith, by definition, you are unreasonable. Since I only communicate with reason, we cannot communicate on the subject of religion (or pretty much everything). I believe marginilizing faithful is necessary? Why? Here is my reason: having people that do not believe in the power of reason outside of position of power will foster communication and understanding in the world. That is my reason. My statement is not based on faith!

Now if a religious person says I believe in Allah, they can really only say they believe in him because of Faith. Most religions admit they are based on faith (and hence not reason!).

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Infohawk, you offer a topic for debate.







In your topic you offer a problem and a solution.



You offer no proof of your belief, and thus there is



no reason to believe it.







In your own reasoning, that makes you a person of faith,



unable to respond to reason, and thus unable to explain



anything to those of us who believe in reason, and unfortunately



I can not show you how unreasonable you are being.











My solution is not to marginallize you but ask that you accept



the flaw in your faith, and the flaw in others with different faith.











:gift:

I have reason to believe what I do. Proof do not have to be a bloody glove or a statistical analysis. But there must be reasons. For example, in a court of law, for example, the judge will tell you: you see snow on the ground, but you did not see snow fall, you can reason that snow fell that night even though you did not see it. The thing is faithful do not need reasons! This is the problem!



For example, I believe faithful (like yourself apparently) cannot be communicated with because they are not reasonable. If you have faith, by definition, you are unreasonable. Since I only communicate with reason, we cannot communicate on the subject of religion (or pretty much everything). I believe marginilizing faithful is necessary? Why? Here is my reason: having people that do not believe in the power of reason outside of position of power will foster communication and understanding in the world. That is my reason. My statement is not based on faith!



Now if a religious person says I believe in Allah, they can really only say they believe in him because of Faith. Most religions admit they are based on faith (and hence not reason!).

I have faith that I pretty much own this one!

 

[Infohawk]

Ozone: you are a case-in-point of why reasonable people cannot communicate with faithful people. We do not have a common basis for communication. I use reason; you do not. Unfortunately, people like you make life hard for the rest of us. Example: Reasonable person: I believe abortion should be legal because a person should have unbridled dominion over their own body (that's a reason, you may not agree with it, but it's a reason). Faithful person: god told me abortion is bad. (There's no reason there; just faith). Hence there is conflict. Now fortunately we reasonable people can use reason to create weapons and inventions that can protect us from the unreasonable barbarians. Alas, we have been sharing the fruits of reason with the faithful for too long. Faithful should be marginilized and not allowed to benefit from the fruits of reason. Maybe then, they will understand the weakness of their ways. If not, who cares, at least we won't be held back by them.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Ozone: you are a case-in-point of why reasonable people cannot communicate with faithful people. We do not have a common basis for communication. I use reason; you do not. Unfortunately, people like you make life hard for the rest of us. Example: Reasonable person: I believe abortion should be legal because a person should have unbridled dominion over their own body (that's a reason, you may not agree with it, but it's a reason). Faithful person: god told me abortion is bad. (There's no reason there; just faith). Hence there is conflict. Now fortunately we reasonable people can use reason to create weapons and inventions that can protect us from the unreasonable barbarians. Alas, we have been sharing the fruits of reason with the faithful for too long. Faithful should be marginilized and not allowed to benefit from the fruits of reason. Maybe then, they will understand the weakness of their ways. If not, who cares, at least we won't be held back by them.

Your faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof) is different than mine.


unfortunately I can not show you how unreasonable you are being.

 

[Infohawk]

It is clear why you cannot show how unreasonale I am being. a) I am using reason and you do not believe in it b) as other posters have mentioned, you are simply repeating yourself (that my work in a mosque but it does not work when faced with reasonable people c) you do not understand the difference between faith and belief ; fiction and fact.

 

[przero]

So you have no faith?

 

[Infohawk]

przero, I do not believe in things for which there is no reason to believe.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
It is clear why you cannot show how unreasonale I am being. a) I am using reason and you do not believe in it b) as other posters have mentioned, you are simply repeating yourself (that my work in a mosque but it does not work when faced with reasonable people c) you do not understand the difference between faith and belief ; fiction and fact.

You posted the definition of faith in p&n, I am using your definition which is in fact proof that
your post is based in faith.

Since you offer no proof to defend your position, there's no reason to believe it.

 

[przero]

So if you have no reason to believe something then no one else should either?

 

[Infohawk]

pzero, "So if you have no reason to believe something then no one else should either?"
No, I'm not saying that.

Ozoned: The definition of faith is not based on faith. Dictionaries are assembled by scholars. There is methodology to their work. They look at usage in society and put the commonly accepted terms into a dictionary, which is in print and online. Anyone can see that the dictionary of faith is what it is. We can show you what the definition of faith is. In contrast, nobody show you that Allah is your lord.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Infohawk

It is clear why you cannot show how unreasonale I am being. a) I am using reason and you do not believe in it b) as other posters have mentioned, you are simply repeating yourself (that my work in a mosque but it does not work when faced with reasonable people c) you do not understand the difference between faith and belief ; fiction and fact.

You posted the definition of faith in p&n, I am using your definition which is in fact proof that

your post is based in faith.

Since you offer no proof to defend your position, there's no reason to believe it.

Prove it! Better yet, prove you exist, because I'm not so sure you do.

 

[Infohawk]

DealMonkey, who are you addressing? You appear to be responding to Ozoned.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
DealMonkey, who are you addressing? You appear to be responding to Ozoned.

I'm responding to Ozoned and all of his jibber-jabber. IMO, the theory still stands:

Because those who have faith have a firm belief in something for which there is no proof, it stands to reason that these same people are willing to bypass normal reasoning and logic to arrive at their faith on various issues. They have no valid reason to believe something, yet they do regardless. Therefore these same people would also bypass normal methods of reasoning in order to arrive at other beliefs as well.

Frankly, they can't be trusted. They're perfectly willing to arrive at a conclusion for no apparent reason whatsoever.

 

[przero]

That is EXACTLY what you are saying.

 

[przero]

DealMonkey - You only believe things that have proof?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
pzero, "So if you have no reason to believe something then no one else should either?"

No, I'm not saying that.



Ozoned: The definition of faith is not based on faith. Dictionaries are assembled by scholars. There is methodology to their work. They look at usage in society and put the commonly accepted terms into a dictionary, which is in print and online. Anyone can see that the dictionary of faith is what it is. We can show you what the definition of faith is. In contrast, nobody show you that Allah is your lord.

Kind of sucks when some one is insistent on nagging in your thread, yes?

 

[fjord]

2 basic kinds of belief:

1. Rational - consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"

2. Irrational - not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears"; "irrational animals"
incoherent - without logical or meaningful connection; "a turgid incoherent presentation"
illogical, unlogical - lacking in correct logical relation
unreasonable - not reasonable; not showing good judgment
---
Be`lief´

Noun
1.
belief - any cognitive content held as true
cognitive content, mental object, content - the sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned
conviction, strong belief, article of faith - an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence
faith, trust - complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
doctrine, ism, philosophical system, philosophy, school of thought - a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
philosophy - any personal belief about how to live or how to deal with a situation; "self-indulgence was his only philosophy"; "my father's philosophy of child-rearing was to let mother do it"
expectation, outlook, prospect - belief about (or mental picture of) the future
fetichism, fetishism - a belief in the magical power of fetishes (or the worship of a fetish)
meliorism - the belief that the world can be made better by human effort
opinion, persuasion, sentiment, thought, view - a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"
autotelism - belief that a work of art is an end in itself or its own justification
originalism - the belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
pacifism - the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration
faith, religion, religious belief - a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
popular opinion, public opinion, vox populi, opinion - a belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people; "he asked for a poll of public opinion"
sacerdotalism - a belief that priests can act as mediators between human beings and God
spiritualism - the belief that the spirits of dead people can communicate with people who are still alive (especially via a medium)
spiritual world, unseen - a belief that there is a realm controlled by a divine spirit
supernaturalism - a belief in forces beyond ordinary human understanding
superstition, superstitious notion - an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear
theory - a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
theosophy - belief based on mystical insight into the nature of God and the soul
thought - the organized beliefs of a period or group or individual; "19th century thought"; "Darwinian thought"
totemism - belief in the kinship of a group of people with a common totem
tribalism - the beliefs of a tribal society
values - beliefs of a person or social group in which they have an emotional investment (either for or against something); "he has very conservatives values"
individualism - a belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence
spiritual being, supernatural being - an incorporeal being believed to have powers to affect the course of human events
unbelief, disbelief - a rejection of belief

2.
belief - a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
impression, notion, feeling, opinion
idea, thought - the content of cognition; the main thing you are thinking about; "it was not a good idea"; "the thought never entered my mind"
presence - the impression that something is present; "he felt the presence of an evil force"
effect - an impression (especially one that is artificial or contrived); "he just did it for effect"
first blush - at the first glimpse or impression; "at first blush the idea possesses considerable intuitive appeal but on closer examination it fails"
hunch, suspicion, intuition - an impression that something might be the case; "he had an intuition that something had gone wrong"

 

[Infohawk]

Ozone wrote: "Kind of sucks when some one is insistent on nagging in you thread, yes?"

No ozone, it does not. First of all, I posted a topic so people would discuss and learn. Second of all, it is hard to be nagged by a bulletin board. I can ignore it any time.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Nothing I said shows I have hatred for religious people. I think they should be marginilized. But again, you don't believe in reason. So we cannot communicate.

I believe in a reason. I believe that the reason Bush is our president is because he was annointed and appointed to lead us by God. And God has picked Bush to lead us again. So you may as well stay home come November, no pansy New England Democrat can beat a Commander in Chief who goes to war at at God's command.



Zephyr

This man DOES NOT speak for all Christians. This man DOES NOT speak for most Christians. This man DOES NOT speak for many Christians. This man DOES NOT even speak for a sizeable minority of Christians.

Any man alive today who claims to know God's plan is a fool.

ZV

What??!!! You dare to question Pat Robertson's religious relevence? You dare question his relationship with God?!!!!

Zephyr

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Infohawk

"Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof"







Since there's no proof, there's no reason to believe. Faithful people do not respond to reason. Thus they cannot explain anything to those of use who believe in reason and, unfortunately, we cannot show them how truly unreasonable they're being.







Solution: leave reasoning and thoughtful discussion to those who believe in it. Leave religious nuts alone and marginilize them where necessary (read Osama, George W., Sharon, and other faithful fools).

Here we see again you're sweeping hatred for all religious people. Learn to love your neighbors and release your hatred.



Zephyr

And here we see my sweeping hatred for bad grammar. It's your, not you're.:|

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Ozone: you are a case-in-point of why reasonable people cannot communicate with faithful people. We do not have a common basis for communication. I use reason; you do not. Unfortunately, people like you make life hard for the rest of us. Example: Reasonable person: I believe abortion should be legal because a person should have unbridled dominion over their own body (that's a reason, you may not agree with it, but it's a reason). Faithful person: god told me abortion is bad. (There's no reason there; just faith). Hence there is conflict. Now fortunately we reasonable people can use reason to create weapons and inventions that can protect us from the unreasonable barbarians. Alas, we have been sharing the fruits of reason with the faithful for too long. Faithful should be marginilized and not allowed to benefit from the fruits of reason. Maybe then, they will understand the weakness of their ways. If not, who cares, at least we won't be held back by them.

So no-one who has faith has ever benefitted humanity? That's just blatantly false. Henry Ford was a religious person. The Wright brothers were men of faith. But I suppose that to you, a man like Abraham Lincoln is just as bad as a hypocritical televangelist because both men have faith.

You seem to think that anyone with faith lacks any ability to take care of themselves. That's asinine. You have precisely zero support for your position that the irrationality of faith must necessarily transfer into all areas. You have failed to address any of the points I made in my first post in this thread. How much have you studied philosophy anyway? Logic?

I ask for these things:

Proof of your assertion that faith necessarily equates to irrationality and an imperviousness to reason in everything. Bear in mind that logicaly and rationally a single counterexample is sufficient to smash your claim in this area.

Proof that anyone and everyone who has faith is holding back those who have no faith.

Proof that there is no reasonable basis for disagreeing with your abortion example. (i.e. prove to me that life does not, in fact, begin at conception and that a fetus should not rationally be considered to be a person)

Proof that you exist.

Bear in mind that you are the one making these claims. It is not my responsibility to disprove them, rather, as you have made the claims, it is your responsibility to provide proof for them.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Infohawk



Nothing I said shows I have hatred for religious people. I think they should be marginilized. But again, you don't believe in reason. So we cannot communicate.

I believe in a reason. I believe that the reason Bush is our president is because he was annointed and appointed to lead us by God. And God has picked Bush to lead us again. So you may as well stay home come November, no pansy New England Democrat can beat a Commander in Chief who goes to war at at God's command.

Zephyr

This man DOES NOT speak for all Christians. This man DOES NOT speak for most Christians. This man DOES NOT speak for many Christians. This man DOES NOT even speak for a sizeable minority of Christians.

Any man alive today who claims to know God's plan is a fool.

ZV

What??!!! You dare to question Pat Robertson's religious relevence? You dare question his relationship with God?!!!!

Zephyr

Of course I do. I also "dare" to believe that the Bible is not literal and that faith needs to be questioned unceasingly. And I'm a Christian too.

ZV

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Infohawk

"Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof"







Since there's no proof, there's no reason to believe. Faithful people do not respond to reason. Thus they cannot explain anything to those of use who believe in reason and, unfortunately, we cannot show them how truly unreasonable they're being.







Solution: leave reasoning and thoughtful discussion to those who believe in it. Leave religious nuts alone and marginilize them where necessary (read Osama, George W., Sharon, and other faithful fools).

Here we see again you're sweeping hatred for all religious people. Learn to love your neighbors and release your hatred.



Zephyr

And here we see my sweeping hatred for bad grammar. It's your, not you're.:|

Uhhh sorry to burst your bubble, but the meaning of my sentence was that Infohawk is once again "sweeping hatred for all religious people". Hatred is kind of like dust and can be swept under the rug with a broom. So my original word choice is grammatically correct.

Zephyr

 

[Infohawk]

" So no-one who has faith has ever benefitted humanity? "
No, I am not saying that.

"You seem to think that anyone with faith lacks any ability to take care of themselves."
I'm not saying that.

"You have precisely zero support for your position that the irrationality of faith must necessarily transfer into all areas."
That was not my position either. I think that was something someone else was saying

"How much have you studied philosophy anyway? Logic?"
I have studied enough to know that by questioning my education / experience you are engaging in ad hominem attacks against me, which does nothing for your arguments.


"Proof of your assertion that faith necessarily equates to irrationality and an imperviousness to reason in everything. Bear in mind that logicaly and rationally a single counterexample is sufficient to smash your claim in this area."
I'm not going to argue for that because I don't believe that.

"Proof that anyone and everyone who has faith is holding back those who have no faith."
The Israel-Palestine conflict; anti-abortion protestors; Muslim fanatics; Christian fanatics; overpopulation; AIDS. Many of the biggest problems we face today are those caused or worsened by the faithful.

"Proof that you exist."
I'm typing this message aren't I? You can take a picture of me, you can't take one of Allah.

"Bear in mind that you are the one making these claims."
Wrong. You have misunderstood many of my claims or are alleging that I am making certain claims when I am not.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
" So no-one who has faith has ever benefitted humanity? "
No, I am not saying that.

"You seem to think that anyone with faith lacks any ability to take care of themselves."
I'm not saying that.

"You have precisely zero support for your position that the irrationality of faith must necessarily transfer into all areas."
That was not my position either. I think that was something someone else was saying

Then you have no support for your claim that people of faith should be marginalised.

Originally posted by: Infohawk
"How much have you studied philosophy anyway? Logic?"
I have studied enough to know that by questioning my education / experience you are engaging in ad hominem attacks against me, which does nothing for your arguments.

Was not an attack. I wanted to know what sort of exposure to texts I could expect in order to know from where I might draw examples and to know how much familiarity I should expect you to have with the classical arguments.

Originally posted by: Infohawk
"Proof of your assertion that faith necessarily equates to irrationality and an imperviousness to reason in everything. Bear in mind that logicaly and rationally a single counterexample is sufficient to smash your claim in this area."
I'm not going to argue for that because I don't believe that.

Then, as I said before, you have no support for your claim that all who have faith should be marginalised.

Originally posted by: Infohawk
"Proof that anyone and everyone who has faith is holding back those who have no faith."
The Israel-Palestine conflict; anti-abortion protestors; Muslim fanatics; Christian fanatics; overpopulation; AIDS. Many of the biggest problems we face today are those caused or worsened by the faithful.

You missed the "anyone and everyone" part of my comment. Just because a very small minority of people who contribute to problems that would exist anyway in one form or another does not make them the cause, and it certainly does not mean that everyone with faith is a problem. If you pulled 3 marbles out of a bag containing 1,000 marbles and all three were blue, would it be rational to conclude that all the marbles were blue? No. Since you're an expert on logic and rationality you must surely also understand that correlation and causality are two very different things. Simply because you associate a small and unrepresentative sample of persons who have faith with these sorts of things does not logically lead to the conclusion that all people with faith are the cause of those things. It does not even lead to the conclusion that the specific people you observe are the cause of those things.

Originally posted by: Infohawk
"Proof that you exist."
I'm typing this message aren't I? You can take a picture of me, you can't take one of Allah.

This is to prove a point. Prove to me that you are not a figment of my imagination and that I'm not in a coma somwhere dreaming this whole exchange. That's not possible. So according to your argument, I should not believe that you exist because I have no proof. Likewise, you have no proof that I exist.

Originally posted by: Infohawk
"Bear in mind that you are the one making these claims."
Wrong. You have misunderstood many of my claims or are alleging that I am making certain claims when I am not.

No rational person is going to believe your denial. The claims I present as yours follow logically from the words and phrasing you chose. I am not responsible for inability on your part to properly convey your actual ideas.

I notice further that you choose to ignore my rebuttal to your abortion example.

ZV