₦airaland Forum

Maximus69:
The fact is majority were MISINFORMED regarding what faith truly means. FAITH in itself is the TRUTH, not the evidence of TRUTH!
It's what you're sure of that put FAITH in you not the other way round!

To illustrate what FAITH means, picture two hungry men walking along a path, they're both strangers to each other as they're going one began comforting the other saying "Don't worry, my father's house is just by the corner. When we get home we'll have more than enough to eat and drink"
Then suddenly they saw an accident involving a truck carrying loafs of bread, the hungry paupers in the area ignored the wounded driver who is crying for help, and each one is eating whatever his hands could reach. Then the guy who has been promising his newly found friend rushed to the site, his friend thought he was either going to rescue the wounded driver or perhaps driving away the hungry looking paupers. But to his greatest shock, he got there, joined the hungry paupers and started eating hopelessly!

Please, do you think his friend need anyone to tell him that he has been lying all along?

Well that's what FAITH means!

If truthfully his father has what it takes to cater for him and his friend the way he said, surely he won't do that.

Why the guy didn't behave in the best way possible, him eating from the truck that crashed does not automatically mean that he didn't have food at home OR that is father couldn't cater for him OR that he was lying. That is an assumption you choose to make.

We would still have to verify if he indeed had food at home before we make the conclusion that he was lying.

For all we know, the truck that crashed could be carrying his favourite food which he had not eaten in a long time and happened to be irresistible to him. So it wouldn't automatically show that he was lying to his friend about having food at home.

What I'm saying is he could still have had food at home and still ate from the truck that crashed so that is not enough justification to conclude that is lying.

So your analogy is flawed.

Maximus69:

So all those people are FAITHLESS Sir.

They're saying heaven is their home, yet they strive desperately for material things. They're saying they love their neighbour but to them any mistake of those in their neighbourhood makes the one who makes the mistake an enemy that should DIE by fire!

You will see the ASSURANCE in the action of faithful people, and you'll be moved to feel that what they're saying is REAL! Hebrew 11:1

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Read about it here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

"Good people do good. And bad people do bad.
But to make good people do bad? That one requires religion." - Unknown

BIBLESPEAKS:
Even scientists have faith in the laws of the Universe that's why they can carry out experiments and bring about theories. Having to count on gravity, sunshine, rainfall etc is all faith.

Do you have faith that whatever you throw up will come down? If your answer to that is NO then everything you wrote up there is complete nonsense.

BIBLESPEAKS:
As often as these things don't fail us, our faith in them become stronger. That's a real description of a theists faith in God.

No, quite the contrary. The more confidence we have in things. the less faith is required to believe in them.

I'm sure you do not have faith that when you put your leg on dry ground you're not going to sink. That is because every single time you put your leg on the ground it supports you.

You do not need faith to accept that when you put your hand in water your hand gets wet. Because EVERY SINGLE time you put your hand into water your hand gets soiled.

You do not need faith for things that are unassailably consistent. Because you have an incredible level of confidence in those things.

So we only need faith for things that cannot be demonstrated to warrant such levels of confidence as the above.

DoctorAlien:
My thoughts?

But, good sire, everything you "know" is based on pure faith - faith that the axioms of your logical system (the laws of logic as we know them) are "true". And you cannot prove that the laws of logic are true (neither can you prove that they're false). So on whose authority do you receive the laws of logic, to have and to base your thought processes upon, including the one which leads you reject the truth of the claim of God's existence?

While I am willing to concede that the laws of logic cannot be proven true or false, I am able to put it to you that it is the single most honest way of explaining reality.

Everything that we can explain today and that we can claim with a certain degree of boldness to be correct have all been arrived at using the laws of logic.

Notice how I didn't say MOST. ALL of them.

Using the laws of logic, someone who is hundred of miles away over the sea can observe the same things I observe and come to the same conclusion that I have.

The laws of logic are the single most consistent ways of explaining reality.

DoctorAlien:
You ask whether anyone needs faith to know that 1+1=2. Well, it may surprise you to know that you believe that 1=1 purely on faith. (Let's not even progress as yet to 1+1). 1=1 is essentially a statement of the law of logic which states that a thing is itself (called the law of identity). Otherwise, why is 1 not equal to 2?

You are assuming that mathematics is actually real. The numbers are imaginary and are only used to explain reality. Like if I have 1 plate in my left hand and 1 plate in my right hand I can conclude that I have 2 plates.

So I know that 1 <insert object> + 1 <insert object> gives 2 of that object.

It is just another conclusion based on the laws of logic. And it is astronomically consistent. Anyone on another planet will use logic and arrive at the same conclusion: that for example having 1 atom plus another atom makes 2 atoms.

I don't just have faith that 1 + 1 = 2.
It is an explanation of reality. And it has been proven to be correct method of explaining reality. Or at least OUR reality.

I know that 1 ≠ 2 because I cannot, for example, give 2 people 1 WHOLE thing. I can only give 1 person 1 whole thing. If I'm going to give two people 1 thing, I have to divide that one thing into two and then I get ½.

And I can continue to derive all the other numbers based on the same logic as an explanation of reality.

So the numbers are basically like a language I can use to decode what I am perceiving and actually do not require faith to accept them as correct. Because it is CONSISTENT and it allows me to transact and interact with other people without cheating them or feeling cheated myself.

DoctorAlien:
So, essentially, the Bible is right when it says "By faith we understand..." (Heb. 11:3). By faith in the universal authority of the Lawgiver whose laws indisputably govern our thoughts, we understand that that same Lawgiver exists.

Lol no FAITH ON THE OTHER HAND is an incredibly ambiguous way of understanding or decoding reality.

Faith is the reason why a deist looks at the sky and say "Oh god must have made these things even though I have not seen him or have objective proof."

Faith is the reason why a Muslim also looks at the same sky and says "Oh Allah must have made this and he wants me to worship him and he wants me to kill those that will not worship him even though I have not seen him or have objective proof."

Which is also the reason why you as a Christian looks at the same sky and says "Oh Yahweh must have made this and he wants me to worship him and he wants me to kill homosexuals and possess slaves even though I have not seen him or have objective proof."

All of them would be right according to faith.

Logic would ask what is the evidence to describe what the sky is made up of and/or where it came from and/or who made it if there is indeed evidence to conclude that it was made.

Logic is careful in observing all the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. Faith is not.


Faith allows people to make different kinds of conclusions based on the same observation because it is flawed. When using faith you can leap above the evidence and make conclusions. Logic does not allow for that.

DoctorAlien:
Note that it does not help to claim that the laws of logic are just a description of the way human beings think. That does not remove the question about the trueness of such way of thinking. Put in other words, should we accept that the laws of logic just describe the way human beings think, then a different set of laws of logic, (say e.g. "1 is not equal to 1" ), should it be encountered in human reasoning, cannot be said to be less true or more true than the laws of logic as we know them, since that different set of laws of logic would equally be describing the way (some) human beings think.
So, you see, faith is everything.

Indeed we do accept that in certain situations 1 does not equal to 1. That is why we have different bases in mathematics (base 2, 8, 10 etc)

We have only chosen base 10 because it is a more accurately convenient way of explaining things. Science does not claim absolute truth. And neither does mathematics. But if there will be anything like the truth then it sure does sounds like logic is the best way to get there. And not Faith.

Your attempt to undermine rigorously tested, verified, widely accepted and demonstrably consistent logic and exonerate ambigous, unreliable, flexible, often inconsistent faith is defeated.

So try harder.

JMAN05:
I see evidence of God everywhere. Our human body itself is a miracle.

Seeing the evidence of God every where is not an evidence in itself. That is just a statement you have made that YOU see the evidence of God everywhere. You still haven't presented your evidence. You only said you see it.


Human body being a miracle is an unsubstantiated claim born from ignorance. A miracle is an event/something that is deemed greater than the natural (i.e supernatural). A miracle would be a suspension of natural laws.

The human body has been proven to have formed as a result of completely natural processes and not supernatural processes. So your assertion that the human body is a miracle is indeed incredibly mistaken, false and demonstrably so.

JMAN05:
Most things made by science a copied from natural things. They mimic some animals for example to make certain things. Eg the amazing arm of the octopus.

That definitely is NOT proof for any god. Talk less of being a proof for the Christian God. The simple assertion that we observe living things and use that observation as hints and markers to invent artificial objects is not in any way an evidence for any god.

It is merely a statement that we can look at naturally existing things and subsequently, deduce artificial things from those natural things.

JMAN05:
If science mimic these,there must be a designer for this animals they mimic. I can't see a reason to believe that something that is much complex as my Android phone could pop out of nowhere unmade by anyone. I see no reason to accept that.

Wrong. You have made yet another fallacy here.
A non-sequitur fallacy.

That is like saying "Oh if Nairaland mimics Facebook by introducing a like button because Facebook has a like button, then Facebook must be designed by application-designing aliens."

Do you see your error?

Your conclusion is in no way relevant to the observation you made. The fact that we mimic natural things to act as models for designing artificial things does NOT mean that those natural things MUST or DID, in fact, have a creator.


Also the fact that YOU see no reason to accept that complex things may not have a creator does not AUTOMATICALLY mean that complex things do have a creator.

It only means that YOU cannot fathom the possibility that a creator is NOT needed for the things that exist.

For you to be justified in the belief that you hold, you will still have to DEMONSTRATE why anything that is complex must have a creator. Including God as well. Because you very well admit that God is complex. So if God is complex who created god? Since everything that is complex must have a creator. By your logic...

JMAN05:
Again we are told that there was a bang before what we see today as universe and things came up. The bang itself happen in such a way that we exist today. What am I saying, the precision in the universe is proof of a supernatural cause to that big bang.

There is no precision in the universe. Everything that happens is as a direct consequence of the implications of random physical interactions.
Although these interactions are governed by physical laws, they happen completely randomly.

Example: Water exists because 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen forms what we call water. It's not like the universe brings hydrogen and oxygen together to form water. It is just a consequence of having 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen. In a case where we have 2 atoms of hydrogen and also 2 atoms of oxygen you would get a different consequence: hydrogen peroxide.

If a different element happened to be more abundant(than carbon) on earth for example, it is entirely possible that a living species that was not carbon based could have formed.

We are here because of the series of reactions and interactions that have happened. If a slight change of events occurred, it is totally and entirely possible that the building blocks of life could have taken a completely different path.

And we would have life that was ..let's say.. silicone based(and probably they too would wrongly think the universe was fine tuned for the creation of silicon-based life like you're doing) or something like that.

There is no goal or order than the universe. As the famous Steve Hawkins quote says, "If the universe is fine-tuned for anything, it is for the creation of black holes." -Not life.

JMAN05:
These things are very possible with miracle. I believe that there is a supernatural beings out there. See above.

Miracles are again a suspension of natural processes. We have evidence that life formed as a result of completely natural processes they are not possible with a miracle.

You would have to substantiate your belief with evidence that supernatural beings did exist before I can accept your claim as justified or remotely and demonstrably true.

JMAN05:
Yes, a global flood did happen. We even see these stories reoccur in mythologies of different tribes most of which lives quite far from each other.

I appreciate the fact that you call them mythologies. Because a global flood has been proven to be false by Geologists for various reasons.

1. There is not enough volume of water needed to flood the whole landscape on earth and rise enough to kill all life including the ones present on trees and very tall mountains.

2. The atmosphere cannot sustain the amount of water vapour that would be enough to make rainfall for 40 days and 40 nights straight all over the planet.


There are more but for brevity, I won't list them here. If you need more, kindly let me know.

JMAN05:
The Bible didn't mention the animals that entered into the ark. But only stated that animals went in according to their kinds. What these kinds involve is what no one can say.

It is logical to conclude that all the animals that are present on earth today were present in the ark. Except if God created all these animals we see after the flood which the Bible clearly didn't state.

So as a continuation of the reasons mentioned above, I'm curious to how

3. Noah managed to get all the animals we have in the world today into the ark in PAIRS.

4. How he managed to keep those animals among them who only thrive under certain specific conditions. E.g Antarctica Penguins.

5.. How he fed the carnivores and herbivores. I'm more curious to how he fed the carnivores because you can say he cultivated plants to feed the herbivores. What did he feed lions leopards cheetahs with? Since he only took a pair of their food which will be mostly gazelles.

6. How he was able to control that size of a zoo with just himself and his family without the prior knowledge of keeping wildlife.

JMAN05:
6 and 7 has to do with miracle. I do believe in it because there is a supernatural being up there.

Again, you cannot appeal to the supernatural as an explanation of a natural. The supernatural is something that is greater than the natural. More accurately the suspension of a natural process or order.

And we have proven that a lot of things that happen are as a result of natural processes so appeals to supernatural explanation are not required anymore.

it's like saying thunder is caused by the god of thunder when we can totally explain how charges in the cloud produce sound energy. Is supernatural explanation is not needed because we can use a natural explanation and PROVE it.

JMAN05:
8. I don't understand where you are getting at. Why can God grant free will?

An all-knowing god granting freewill would be self-contradicting.

Omniscient = Knowing ALL what would happen BEFOREHAND. Including knowing ALL what your creation will do after you created them.

So the creation is only ACTING OUT what the creator had predetermined or known beforehand.

It looks to the creation like he has free-will but the creator knew what he was going to do anyway. It wasn't actually "free" will.

Therefore, a free will creation cannot coexist with an omniscient/all-knowing creator.

Why not promote cycling among the sports too?

I am a cycling apologist who believes that promotion of cycling infrastructure could solve the ever-worsening traffic situation in Lagos alongside other serious problems like mortality rate from auto accidents and environmental pollution from ruthless combustion engines.

budaatum:
Not telling me to put them to death agrees with do not kill, by my understanding. Either ways, I do not kill anyone so how's that double standards?

P.s. I'm not one who buys into "Bible tells". Its a trick some use to input their own [mis]understanding into the mouth of their God! As far as my experience goes, my Bible does not talk (and I say that despite currently listening to an audio version).

I am solely responsible for my own stupidity in misunderstanding what I read in the Bible, or any book, or anywhere, for that matter..

No, you missed my point.

You were showing me a verse that said "put them to death" and you said it doesn't pertain to you.

And you also turn around and tell me that there was a verse that said "Thou shall not kill" and claim that was specifically speaking to you.

And I am telling you that you cannot simultaneously claim that one verse applies to you on one end and in the same breath claim that another verse does not apply to you without showing why. That would be having double standards.

Do you understand how double standard works?

budaatum:
It does not tell me to "put them to death", bact, and if I claim it does please tell me to have my deranged head checked!

Besides, what happened to the bit that says "buda, don't kill"? Did my cherry picking conveniently miss that bit?

Yes it doesn't tell you to put them to death.

So how also does it now tell you to not kill then?

Are you seeing your double standards?

budaatum:
This Leviticus 20:13?

Please show where it "says to stone homosexuals to death"!

It does says to put them to death.

budaatum:
I would expect you to be honest and base your claims on verifiable evidence, Bact, and not just pull stuff out of your ass, because I assume your 'ologist' has something to do with science and the scientific method.

Please show me where the Bible "says to stone homosexuals to death"!

Expected from a cherrypicker who only reads certain parts of the Bible that suit his bias. Read Leviticus 20:13.

budaatum:
You'll have to forgive buda for having a brain and using it.

The same Bible you claim promotes homophobia, asks you to love one another, and not judge, and remove your own sin before concerning yourself with the sin of others, so perhaps cure your cherry picking before concerning yourself with buda's cherry picking.

Yes...it also SPECIFICALLY says to stone homosexuals to death. But of course let's ignore that and pick the VAGUE verse where it says to love one another...CherryPickAtum.

budaatum:
There you go pulling opinions out of your ass again. Are atheists the only "hypocritical Füčking ignorant"? Is this thread not against equally "hypocritical Füčking ignorant" theists who rely on their faith alone?

An intelligent person who use his brain and wrote the following, Bacteriologist. The only pity is he didn't quite understand the full extent of what he wrote, and he does not have the ability to walk his talk.

Yes! Checkmate buda! I completely agree with you. Pitiable bacteriølogist.Trying to expose your cherry-picking stance... I mean! How could he even think you could be wrong?!

budaatum:
Evidence for what? That a thing is written in the Bible, or that what is written in the Bible is so?Or is there no difference to you?

Smh

budaatum:
Religious inclined people (both atheists and theists) say "accept" and mean "believe". The thought that "understand" has any place is way beyond many. If they actually bothered to read the book they'd know it's not an instruction book. They'd at least know they have the option to obey or not. Or did you miss the bit where Adam and Eve's eyes are written to have opened and they realised they were naked? Who do you know reads the Bible and does the following?

Oh yes.... füčking Bacteriologist!! how much more verses from the Bible do I have to cherry pick and show him before he understands that although I disagree with some parts of the Bible I like to use it to suit my agenda when it pleases me!

Who doesn't read the Bible and cherry-picks?!

Those hypocritical Füčking ignorant Atheists!

budaatum:
You do just pull out stuff from your ass Bact! In the post above alone you pulled out that buda "your divine infallible" from your ass! You pulled out the opinion that buda "your book" from your ass. Or did you get those opinions you claim buda holds from anywhere else than from your ass?

I'd suggest you learn the lesson of this thread and stop behaving like those the op condemned, but would rather you see evidence than pull it out of your ass since its a better way to get an understanding of truths.

Oh yes. The classic cherry-picking Bible apologist who shys away from the parts of the Bible he cannot provide evidence for tells me I should start accepting evidence as being synonymous to faith.

Oh my...Got to love that logic..don't ya
lol

budaatum:
Who told you buda is a Christian, Bacteriologist? You quoted the very wise Bertrand Russell in your op, but does that make you a Bertrandian Russellian?

Funny that you don't want your truth (based on your faith that you know that truth), challenged. Nothing proves your point any better, lol, that untested (unquestioned) faith is most definitely no way to determine truth.

Not believing a thing to be so does not mean one has rejected that thing. One may chose to understand it for what it is instead.

Ooooooh sooooooo you are just someone from the blue who quotes the Bible when it fits what YOU want to say.

SO you're like "I accept only the parts of the Bible
that sounds logical to me and that I am comfortable with. When the other ridiculous parts are pointed out to me I will run away from them and claim I'm not a Christian."


NOW IT ALL MAKES SENSE why you're trying to SHOVE the other definition of faith that SUITS YOU rather than actually address my OP.

I now understand you as a Classic Cherry-picker. Makes sense.

JMAN05:
Faith is defined as the assured expectations of what is hoped for. Heb 11:1

What does it mean? You hope to get your monthly salary. You guys has been owed for months. Now your friend in the same ministry and in the same bank received an alert of his salary. You went to work, and saw that many have gotten there alerts. You expectation is assured. Yours will likely come soon.

2. Faith is the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

What does it mean?

You were at home when you received your alert of monthly salary. But you have not been the money yet. But that alert is an evidence demonstrating that something is in ur account.

It can also be compared to a check issues to you by a trusted friend. The check is the evidence.

That is the meaning of faith. It is no blind belief without evidence backing it up.

I think what you have there is not a true Christian faith. Granted, many profess Christians manifest what we could term blind Faith. They accept things sometimes without evidence.

The Bible is not to blame.

Oh nice

So do you also accept only things that have evidence?

Then please provide evidence for the following : (you're a Christian so I'm assuming it follows that you accept these things)

1. God
2. Talking snakes
3. Talking donkeys
4. A global flood
5. All the animals in the world today existing in one floatable building called an ark and having all the STDs.
6. The dead able to rise after 4 days.
7. A man ascending to heaven without an aircraft or jetpack
8. An all-knowing God granting free will.

I will wait.

budaatum:
Oops. Seems I'm wrong about you. You do have faith in the beliefs you create inside your head.

Well, let me tell you a secret. Faith is an unreliable way to determine the truth. You need evidence too!

How does outlining the values of your divine infallible book called the Bible translate to me making beliefs up in my head?

Is your book not promoting homophobia? Or was it not written by goat herders who claimed to be hearing from god in the dark ages when for example we didn't know where the sun went at night? Or does it not contain instructions for possessing, owning and treating slaves?

You know...I don't just pull out stuff from my ass. That would be what Christians do.

budaatum:
Good thing is you checked the evidence instead of having faith in a baseless belief that buda "believes in a talking snake and a talking donkey".

Oh nice! A Christian who doesn't believe that snakes and donkeys could talk! Finally. Someone in touch with reality!

So what's your basis for rejecting that part of the Bible? Or I'm quoting out of context as usual...

budaatum:
I am quoting you. That does not mean I need your attention. And even if I do, it's your attention. It's your choice to give it or not.

No one gives a shit what someone who believes in a talking snake and a talking donkey believes bud.

budaatum:
Of course you "DO NOT get to dictate what I would do or who I will choose to discuss with or not".

You just need to understand that "You DO NOT get to dictate what I would do or who I will choose to discuss with or not" too.

Right! So füćk off then!

Oh and take your ignorance-supporting, homophobia-promoting, mythical, stone-aged goat- herder inspired, slave manual called the Bible with you. Nonsense.

budaatum:
The fact that I quote or mention you does not mean you must discuss with me. You can easily not discuss with me by ignoring me instead of thinking you can silence me. You are after all not the only one reading the thread so I wonder why you'd think what I have to say is for you alone. Have faith that it isn't.

You DO NOT get to dictate what I would do or who I will choose to discuss with or not. If you quote me I have a right to reply and to not reply.

It is called a "mention" for a reason. If you mention me that means you're calling my attention. And I give it to you or withhold it.

Logic. Seems difficult..is it.I bet no.

triplechoice:
@bacteriologist below is your definition of faith and what you think it actually means in the Bible;

For füčk sake dude it is not my definition. This is the accepted definition of faith among the skeptic community.

I'm seriously tired of you all putting words in my mouth.

triplechoice:
"Religious faith is having no reason to believe in something and still going ahead to believe in that thing and preaching that thing as true."

You have continued to maintain the above and insist that any other definition is wrong .But as a former believer, it's very obvious that your definition of faith is not as the religious person sees it

Yes, Of course it's not going to be as they see it.
The average believer believes what they believe based on some level of conviction. Whether that conviction is actual evidence is what has to be determined. Whether it is fallacious is what has to be pointed out.
And that is the OBVIOUS point that I'm trying to make clear here.

triplechoice:
You say that faith means" having no reason to believe in somthing but the "true believer" who has faith believes he has a"valid reason"to believe in what he believes if not he would not be motivated to preach to you.What you regard as" no reason" may actually be is reason for having faith

For instance, a religious person or a Christian says that the reason or evidence for God is the world we live in or the "truth" that is contained in the Bible.At the moment he is not ready to reject or question what he has come to accept as evidence or reason for faith

Yes, you are correct but would that mean actual evidence?

For example, If Muslims are killing themselves for 72 virgins because they are convinced they have "evidence" for 72 virgins does that automatically mean that they actually have evidence to justify holding that belief or killing themselves?

That is the loophole. And I am trying to make clear here that faith is not enough. I CLEARLY EXPLAINED in the original post that it's a good way of believing ANYTHING but it's not an actual way of determining the truth.

Maybe if you guys actually took time to read the post to understand what I was saying you would stop putting words in my mouth and making me repeat myself hundreds of times.

triplechoice:
So you can see that you are the one who sees"no reason" to have faith. It's not so for the Christian .I hope you understand this?

Before now, I was certain about what I thought was the evidence for the God I believed in and no one could convince me otherwise but right now I have moved ahead.What I learnt from my experience is that it's a waste of time trying to convince a "true believer" to abandon their faith.You will continue to hit your head on the wall.They don't and can never see things the way you see it

I explained why this is not a good way of determining truth. I accept that the average Christian may not understand. But that is why I took time to explain why faith is often flawed.

Anyone who is honest enough with themselves will take a seat and examine why they believe what they believe to see if it's actually based entirely on faith. Rather than say "Oh there are other definitions of faith apart from yours so faith is surely and undoubtedly enough evidence to believe in things I cannot prove." **Eyeroll**

By moving ahead did you mean you actually reviewed your evidence? It is also part of the things I explained in the first reply (I am assuming you actually went through at least the opening thread). That I took time to review my reasons for believing these things. And I came to the conclusion that faith is Not enough.

So if you were truly convinced that you had the best evidence and best reasons for believing god how were you able to change your mind (if you did)?

budaatum:
No. Faith, by definition, is not against evidence, and I said this at the beginning, but it seems you insist on ramming your own definition of faith down everyone's throat despite many telling you they require evidence for their faith.



Below, is a teaching about the faith of foolish people and that of wise people. Maybe you meet more of one than the other but as they say, all swans are white to those who've never seen a black swan.

I told you I am talking about religious faith. And the definition of what YOU LIKE to define faith as isn't what I would like to discuss. As it wasn't the original purpose of this post.

Even a message from Wikipedia YOU shared earlier, confirmed that faith is viewed as skeptics as belief without evidence.

But again...you can choose to ignore my contextual definition of faith and hold on to what YOU WANT faith to be defined as. Fortunately, It doesn't change anything. Your opinion don't change actual factual information, definition or discussions.

Daejoyoung:
When l was a child, l thought like a child and spoke like a child, but when l became a man, l put away childish things.

So isn't it time to put away childish things? E.g Imaginary friends like Jesus and Mohammed?

Daejoyoung:
Faith is not against evidence and science. The catholic church for instance have done so many terrible things, but medevial catholic church continued to sponsor science and learning then. The Gallileo affair was the only real case of persecution against a scientist but even then Gallileo was also hated because he mocked his critics. Apart from Gallileo, we had only the case of Bruneo, which wasn't so much about science.
This idea that religion or faith is against science is a modern idea and has no basis in history.

No. Faith by definition is against evidence. Because it's only thrives in the absence of evidence. In the face of evidence Faith would no longer be required.

You know what faith healing means right?

The idea of "faith healing" is borne from anti science movements. Teaching people to not accept medical care but have faith that they will be healed instead. Is a barbaric practice that is not alien to a lot of Religion especially Christianity.

Religion and faith are usually anti-science. This is not a myth. A lot of flat earthers and people who deny the moon landing are religious people. Churches in the US are pressuring the government to stop teaching evolution in schools and start teaching the creation story instead.

How much more development would have happened today if the church didn't burn the brightest minds at stake for questioning it's doctrines?


And again:
You claim something and reality states otherwise. I don't mean any insult but are you conversant with the real world?

Daejoyoung:
By spirit l meant beyond the letter or literal meaning of the story to the message. For example a child wanting to be a superman makes no sense literally, but makes sense when the child tries to be a hero that overcomes obstacles and helps people based on the superman story.

Yes imaginary friends can and do make sense for little children.

What beats me is seeing grown adults seeing the need for believing in mythology and imaginary nonsense. And trying to tell others that what they believe is true.

Daejoyoung:
Are you now the one to define religous faith for us? lt seems you already came to this discussion table with your own assumptions and you would not have it any other way? isn't that the definition of closed mindedness which some accuse religious people of?

No. It seems I'm not going to define faith according to what YOU THINK the definition of faith is.

In the original post I specifically highlighted the definition of faith in the Bible and used it as an explanation.

Thankfully what you like to think are not fact. And will not alter the definition of facts.

Daejoyoung:
So when there was no science of DNA test, people had no real scientific method of testing paternity, they had to believe in the testimony of their mother and they had to look for signs that made them truly believe they are children of their father. So we agree then, you don't just believe in christ and stop, you have to study it's teachings also and then test them by their fruits, in other to believe them. l think you are misunderstanding something here.

Not so. We had other tests but they were not as accurate as the DNA testing. We had like blood testing for example. So it wasn't really dark back then.

But also that will be my point that as science continues to grow Faith becomes less necessary. Because we are always bent on providing evidence for every claim we make. There are people are always working to make sure that we are able to provide evidence for the things we claim. Because we know that faith is Not enough.

Religion on the other hand wants people to have more faith. You can go to any church and one of the key messages is to keep having Faith. Religion propagate faith and faith is often flawed.

For the last time! FAITH IS NOT A RELIABLE WAY OF DETERMINING TRUTH.

Daejoyoung:
Your definition of faith is too simple. The closest to what you are saying would be like a child who believes in superman stories even though they are myths, but the child becomes very optimistic and thinks he/she also could become a hero like superman some day. Now that is the purpose of myth, myth does not always equate to falsehood in its spirit.

No, YOU THINK my definition of faith is too simple. Thankfully, what you think doesn't change the actual definition of faith according to religion.
Lol even the definition of faith according to the Bible is simple? Being an evidence for things not seen? ot proven?

And yes I would liken faith in God to faith in Spider-Man or Superman. I mean what's the difference?

You would have to show that the spirit is real before you can make any claims based on the spirit. The last part of your comment can be rightfully discarded.

Truthsbitter:
everything that was created started with a belief

Prove it.

Truthsbitter:
and even when the plan of that which was to be created fails it was revived and fueled by same belief/faith.

Wrong. You're just ignorant about the scientific method. when it comes to scientific discoveries, the failed experiments are as important as the ones that worked. Because we now know what doesn't work so we cross it off the list and move on to other models and hypothesis.

Most inventions were not necessarily completed by the people who started them. A lot of them were abandoned and were only completed by people in subsequent generations.

and lastly this sort of faith is different from that of religious faith.

Truthsbitter:
including the airplane you mentioned earlier and the mathematical calculations too.
faith likes to be tested and faith works only when truely tested (not the cowardly doubt you displayed when budaatum talked about building a bridge that could cross you over),

If Faith did love to be tested the Christian church would not have murdered millions of people because they questioned the church doctrines of faith at the time.

Also, blasphemy laws would not occur in Muslim countries where people are killed for questioning the prophet Muhammad.

We also know how you loving Christians love to threaten Atheists with hell when we call out the fallacies and inconsistencies in your religions.

So contrary to what you love to say, frequent occurrences here have shown that faith does not like to be questioned. If anything it becomes hostile and violent upon questioning.

Truthsbitter:
Just like the bible says" faith without work is death".

Faith without works is death. But works without faith often brings results. So it seems like the actual useless thing here is faith.

Truthsbitter:
read histories of men who truely brought into existence things that existed only in thier imaginations..e.g electric bulb, airplane...(even to determine the correct shape of the earth started with the belief of a man).
find your stand...you need one.

I fail to see how imagination translates to Faith in my original post. It seems you lot are now shifting the goalposts to make faith look like having a creative thought.

That is not the definition of religious faith. I have said it a hundred times on this thread alone!!

Religious faith is having no reason to believe in something and still going ahead to believe in that thing and preaching that thing as true.

Surely the early scientist didn't go about telling people that they had to believe what they were imagining was true until they proved it worked and was so.



So it is you füčking christians that need to get your act together and understand my stand.

Provide evidence for your ridiculous claims because faith is simply not enough.

[quote author=Daejoyoung post=85965737][/quote]Religious faith is the worst form of faith.

Religious faith:

1. Claims to know the truth without proof

2. Tries to spread falsehood as truth based on faith.

3. Turns around and condemn (some kill) people who reject it's claims because it cannot be verified but only based on feeble faith.

4. Passes laws and "moral standards" on its followers and non-followers based on claims on faith they could not even be shown to be true in the first place.

And you lot turn around and say Faith does like to be questioned. **Eyeroll**

Daejoyoung:
Have you taken a DNA test to prove that your father is actually your father? lf you do not look so much like him for example, then why do you believe he is your father? lt is because you also operate by faith.
Without faith, so many things would be impossible even science.

Another pitiable case of false equivocation fallacy.

Is the DNA test the only way in the world to know for certain that I am the true Son of My father?

No. I actually look like him. So I don't operate by faith. But even if I didn't, there will be certain characteristics/behaviour that is common to the both of us and that I can use as a reference point to determine my paternity.

But that still would be by the way. My main point would be:

The fact that there's a DNA test means that there is an objective method by which I can undoubtedly verify and ascertain the belief that my father actually conceived me.

Faith ON THE OTHER HAND is the only basis for people to hold beliefs that have no objective means of verifying such beliefs/claims to be true or justifiable. It is a smokescreen to believe nonsense mythology and mythical claims, accept them as true and even get others to accept those claims as true by preaching. I am not going from house to house telling people how my father is undoubtedly the one that conceived me.

There's no objective method of determining that god exists OR that the Bible is from him OR that Jesus existed and did the things the Bible claims he did OR that Christianity is true OR any other religion for that matter is true.


Religions are called "faiths" because all they have is FAITH(which fails miserably).


So You fail at making "faith" sound like what everyone does. Try harder next time with your "whataboutism."