Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,151,112 members, 7,811,129 topics. Date: Sunday, 28 April 2024 at 01:19 AM

Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth - Religion (2) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth (6551 Views)

Why Faith Is Delusional / See Why Faith Healers Can't Be Employed By Hospitals / Faith Is A Race, Run Your Own (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 7:46pm On Jan 20, 2020
Tamaratonye1:

Faith is what you use when you have no evidence to back your claims.
Not true. Your definition of Faith is based on your own bias through which you, like the op, wish to set up strawmen!

Read through the thread and you'd see it claimed that faith must be evidenced based. I have faith from knowledge acquired and detailed simulations and testing that a bridge I build will not fall down. I would not bother building it if I lack faith in my abilities and models and equations and testing that it would stand.

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Daejoyoung: 7:47pm On Jan 20, 2020
[quote author=Bacteriologist post=85966564]



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.
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.



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.
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.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 8:11pm On Jan 20, 2020
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.

2 Likes

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by CaveAdullam: 8:48pm On Jan 20, 2020
Tamaratonye1:

Faith is what you use when you have no evidence to back your claims.

The fallacy you are using is called, an EQUIVOCATION FALLACY.

Equivocation happens when a word, phrase, or sentence is used deliberately to confuse, deceive, or mislead by sounding like it’s saying one thing but actually saying something else.

Your faith is nothing like the trust we have, based on experience and data.

More bullshit from a theist.
You didn't make any point here.


Tamaratonye1:
Oh my, you just stepped into my wheelhouse. The Wright brothers did not use any faith, in fact, they studied their predecessors, they rigorously tested everything about flight before attempting to do so. They built and tested their own engine. The built a wind tunnel to verify the aerodynamics, they built and flew kites, and the entire process was one of checking and verifying everything before moving onto the next step.
Faith is first believing that metal can fly even when it has not been tested. Work was put into action and the result was shown.

Work verified that the faith is true.


Tamaratonye1:
You seem to know a lot about the qualities of your god. I have a question, why do some innocent children suffer horribly and die from cancer?

1. Poverty.

2. Insufficient health care facilities.

3. Low number of health care personnel.

4. Low number of trained health personnel.

5. Low health care budget.

6. Accessibility to health care facilities.

7. Illiteracy on the side of the parents.

8. Poor follow up by health personnels especially for out patients.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Daejoyoung: 9:32pm On Jan 20, 2020
[quote author=Bacteriologist post=85967589]





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.
Verily l say unto you except you accept the kingdom of God like a child, you shall by no means enter into it. Even so, forbid not the little children to come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

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 first, we must accept the message of the kingdom with a childlike faith( as though it was all about the literal meaning)and then when we come to a full understanding, we must go for the spiritual meaning behind the message of the kingdom, in other words we must do away with childish literal understanding of spiritual truths.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 9:51pm On Jan 20, 2020
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?

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Tamaratonye1(f): 11:07pm On Jan 20, 2020
Daejoyoung:
But the wright brothers already believed their work could result in something that can fly, and then they took action. What the wright brothers did is what Hebrews 11 as a whole described, it gives you examples of heroes of faith, who believed something and took bold actions that were life changing because they looked forward to and had faith in the coming of a better kingdom or what we can call a new society.
l don't believe you are against faith in itself, tamaratonye1, rather l think you are against religious faith in particular. But religious faith is not all terrible, rather such a faith must also be tested by its fruits.
For man to fly, it was not faith but a desire to fly, like the birds. This desire goes back thousands of years, as recalled by the famous tale of Icarus. But the Wright brothers did not have faith, their efforts was a continuation of the works of others. They did not invent the internal combustion engine, they just took this and modified it for aviation use. They were aware of the works of Otto Lilienthal, who flew crude gliders. But from Lilienthal they learned the lessons of controllability since Lilienthal lost control, stalled, and fell to the earth to die.

Their work was not "faith" but an understanding that all the pieces were there, they systematically tackled each problem solved them, and flew.

"Faith" is just blind acceptance of anything. Am I against "religious faith"? Yes, because it has zero foundation, just blind acceptance that can lead people to do stupid or bad things. Unfortunately, almost all religious faith is tested by doing something so stupid you die. There are people who killed others via suicide bombs or flew aircraft into building because of their faith.

I do not practice "faith". I look both ways before I cross the street, I check my bank balance to make sure all the numbers are correct, and I will never buy anything from a stranger just because they say "have faith".

Tamaratonye1:

You seem to know a lot about the qualities of your god. I have a question, why do some innocent children suffer horribly and die from cancer?
CaveAdullam:

1. Poverty.

2. Insufficient health care facilities.

3. Low number of health care personnel.

4. Low number of trained health personnel.

5. Low health care budget.

6. Accessibility to health care facilities.

7. Illiteracy on the side of the parents.

8. Poor follow up by health personnels especially for out patients.
Wow, you do not know anything about cancer. You could be from the richest family on this planet, with the best health care, yet be struck down by cancer.

Based on your beliefs, your god is responsible for everything, including the conditions the children were born into.. Why is your god so cruel as to make innocent children suffer?

Daejoyoung:

We hold this truth to be self evident, that all humans are created equal

This is quoted by many liberals today. But tell me what data did they rely on to come to this conclusion?
Daejoyoung, with that darling little overtly naive spiel you just submitted, I have faith you will soon be having your own ass neatly filleted, seasoned, packaged, and handed back to you in very short order.

You took that statement from the US Declaration of Independence, which is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." This has nothing to do with "belief", because it's a statement of intent. Namely, the intent to treat humans alike under the law, regardless of their circumstances. That you failed to understand this elementary concept speaks volumes.

In the 1600's Oliver Cromwell took control of Britain, and waged a ruthless war on the Catholics. Included in this war were many horrors including mass murders of the Irish. That was never forgotten by the Irish (they still fight over Roman Catholic/Protestant issues). The early Irish immigrants to the US carried this history, one where non-protestants were not given full rights as humans.

The framers of the Constitution were very aware of the horrors inflicted by Cromwell (and the many failings of the British ruling system), and that clause was to make sure that no one was treated less than others just because of their religion.

from Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell#Irish_campaign:_1649%E2%80...

Cromwell's hostility to the Irish was religious as well as political. He was passionately opposed to the Catholic Church, which he saw as denying the primacy of the Bible in favour of papal and clerical authority, and which he blamed for suspected tyranny and persecution of Protestants in continental Europe.

Do you know anything.... anything at all... about American history?

Where do you find the largest community of Irish in the US? Boston. Where did the US Revolution begin? Boston, with the Boston Tea Party.

3 Likes

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Finallydead: 12:24am On Jan 21, 2020
Bacteriologist:
Let's discuss this "Faith" thing. Faith is like the single most important thing in religion and theism in general.

It is safe to say that the basis of theism is faith.

I hear Christians for example, talk about faith a lot and they say that once you have Faith a lot of things especially in the Bible begins to make sense.

Same thing with Muslims. "Faith" in Allah makes you believe that Islam is the true religion.

But my main point is this why would faith be required to know the truth?

A lot of things we recognise as facts and truths today do not require any sort of faith whatsoever.

Does anyone need faith to know that 1 + 1 = 2?

Is faith required to make an airplane glide in the air? Or a ship remain buoyant?

Does anyone need faith to know that water + clay makes mud?

Do you need faith to accept that whatever is thrown up gets pulled back down (except held up by an external force/obstacle?)

It looks like faith is needed only when believing something that cannot be demonstrated or shown to actually be true or exist.

And that is the greatest downfall of this thing called "faith." ANYONE can believe whatever they want and CLAIM it as true based on "Faith."

Christians even call it "evidence of things not seen." Then I can claim to have a dragon in my basement/backyard. And believe it on "faith."

Faith is a good way to believe in anything but is not a reliable way of determining the truth. And it is not enough to believe claims: especially those with heavy weight as god claims based on faith alone.

If you care about the truth, Faith is not enough.

What are your thoughts?
A truly intelligent being should not stake his conviction about God on what men claim. What if all the men who you listen to have got it wrong somewhere. Reality is not subjective. Every intelligent being has the capacity to determine reality for himself. You don't need faith to believe in God. God can be determined without faith. Faith is just the way you connect to and please him. But you only need sense to determine the reality of God. It's the height of hypocrisy for instance, when one learned in science says he doesn't believe in God. Then he really doesn't believe in science. How can we intelligently design robots and still doubt the existence of God. Look at all the intelligence it takes us to produce an intelligent lifeless system and will we assume all the uncountable species of intelligent creatures, we ourselves claiming to be most intelligent of them, just popped out of nothing or an unintelligent Cause. We would only be fooling ourselves and we're intelligent enough to know that. Or what is the first law of conservation of energy- that it cannot be created nor destroyed but only transformed. So we all know there is the uncreated Cause and if we were intelligent enough to know that, then this Cause must be intelligent. If we can communicate with each other, then God must know communication.

Again, will we say we're learned in Math and then not smart enough to know there is God. Tell me how many zeros you can add together to get one. A zillion wouldn't do it. So anything that exists could not have come from nothing. But in every number, one is the smallest indivisible whole unit. In 2 there's 1+1. and in 3, another one was added. So if anything exists, it came from One that first existed. If we're intelligent, lets act like it.

But if you will please God, you need faith. Faith is not what most people claim. It is not subjective reality. It is reality that every human can perceive and discern. It is not physical nor intellectual however, but in another dimension of man's being- His spirit. But this dimension is shut down in most men, which is why God as Jesus Christ came from that dimension into our earthly dimension to build the bridge to all men. Every man has a spirit and he can relate with it once life enters it (through the life of the Lord Jesus) just as much as he relates with the physical. When life enters into his spirit, he will gain consciousness in his spirit and just 'know' he is and is justified with God-spiritually, as a baby gains consciousness physically and just knows hunger, thirst, crying and all. Faith does not come from the practice of any religion, neither Christianity nor Judaism nor any other. Faith comes from God Himself. If you want faith then, begin to relate with God's words, only those that came from Him(found in the holy bible), read them over and over, mutter them to yourself, practise them to the best of your ability UNTIL they give birth to Faith inside of you. Religion stops at getting you to do similar acts as an end, thinking you're serving a God you can't really discern but this directive gets you to do same as a means to an end, which is faith, a reality that can be discerned when you get it, which itself is a beginning of a relationship with God, who will be really experienced from then on.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Daejoyoung: 6:04am On Jan 21, 2020
[quote author=Tamaratonye1 post=85971671]


"
Faith" is just blind acceptance of anything. Am I against "religious faith"? Yes, because it has zero foundation, just blind acceptance that can lead people to do stupid or bad things. Unfortunately, almost all religious faith is tested by doing something so stupid you die. There are people who killed others via suicide bombs or flew aircraft into building because of their faith.
Again Tamaratonye1, this is not the definition of faith. l don't know why you are insisting on this definition. l told you before:
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
You practice faith every time you call things that are not as though they were. When you say l will be successful in life, even when the conditions and factors around shows otherwise, then you are exercising faith. All you have to do then, is to add works to your faith so as to become successful.
So faith is not blind acceptance of anything. You have simply learnt about faith wrongly, sorry to say.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by CaveAdullam: 7:15am On Jan 21, 2020
Tamaratonye1:

For man to fly, it was not faith but a desire to fly, like the birds. This desire goes back thousands of years, as recalled by the famous tale of Icarus. But the Wright brothers did not have faith, their efforts was a continuation of the works of others. They did not invent the internal combustion engine, they just took this and modified it for aviation use. They were aware of the works of Otto Lilienthal, who flew crude gliders. But from Lilienthal they learned the lessons of controllability since Lilienthal lost control, stalled, and fell to the earth to die.

Their work was not "faith" but an understanding that all the pieces were there, they systematically tackled each problem solved them, and flew.

"Faith" is just blind acceptance of anything. Am I against "religious faith"? Yes, because it has zero foundation, just blind acceptance that can lead people to do stupid or bad things. Unfortunately, almost all religious faith is tested by doing something so stupid you die. There are people who killed others via suicide bombs or flew aircraft into building because of their faith.

I do not practice "faith". I look both ways before I cross the street, I check my bank balance to make sure all the numbers are correct, and I will never buy anything from a stranger just because they say "have faith".
Man desires to fly but couldn't not fly. They know they can fly, they believe they can fly and sat down their ass to work.

All I see is faith and work in action.



Tamaratonye1:
Wow, you do not know anything about cancer. You could be from the richest family on this planet, with the best health care, yet be struck down by cancer.
And many rich people still survive cancer.

Tamaratonye1:
Based on your beliefs, your god is responsible for everything, including the conditions the children were born into.. Why is your god so cruel as to make innocent children suffer?
Now you are saying God is responsible for all the children on earth. In another words you are indirectly proving He exists. Because you cannot hold a non existing thing responsible for the death of any child.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Tamaratonye1(f): 8:38am On Jan 21, 2020
CaveAdullam:

Now you are saying God is responsible for all the children on earth. In another words you are indirectly proving He exists.
Your statement is built on a dishonest interpretation. I stated ...

"Based on your beliefs, your god is responsible for everything"

I debate my position as if it was based on your religion.

Ask a Muslim, ask a Roman Catholic, ask a protestant, ask anyone of any religion, they all state that their beliefs are based on faith. So many different positions, all defended by faith. Which is the right one? They can't all be correct. That is because their "faith" is not backed up by evidence or anything tangible, just an acceptance anyone can accept.

You can believe anything based on "faith", it is not the pathway to the truth.

Oh, and earlier you said,
CaveAdullam:
On the other side, how can we verify that 1+1=2?
Oh my, what a toughy!

Uh, you might want to take notes... Oh, and CaveAdullam, please feel free to correct any mistakes I may make...

So, we start with the theoretical concept of zero and imagine a singular item within it making that arbitrary nothing into a something because it cannot be nothing if something is in it. (Oh, as a quick side note, try not to get zero confused with infinity.) Anyway, with a singular something somewhat firmly established at this point, we are now able to use the Pythagorean Theorem to determine the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle with two sides that equal the length of that singular something. Then, upon calculating the length of the hypotenuse, we would need to plug that value into the equation for gravitational acceleration as the distance of the fall so we can determine the speed at impact. Now, here's the tricky part. (By the way, if you need me to slow down so you can catch up, just let me know.) Okay, now we have the speed at time of impact. With that speed, we can easily determine how long it would take to pull a head out of an ass, depending on the length of the head in question. Once the head is removed from the ass and all the fecal matter is sufficiently wiped away from the eyes, hold one finger in front of the eyes. Then, after a brief pause, hold another finger next to the first finger in front of the eyes. Then ask the owner of the head to count the number of fingers he sees. If all other calculations were correct, the answer should be, "Two." I'm afraid I can't explain it more simply than that. Fret not, though, because others here are far better at mathematics than I am. No doubt they could make it easier to understand.

Anyways, as I was saying, can you please man up, take ownership of your faith in your god who gives innocent children cancer. Is your god responsible for everything? Yes or no.

2 Likes

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Tamaratonye1(f): 8:44am On Jan 21, 2020
Daejoyoung:
Again tamaratonye1, this is not the definition of faith. l don't know why you are insisting on this definition. l told you before:
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
You practice faith every time you call things that are not as though they were. When you say l will be successful in life, even when the conditions and factors around shows otherwise, then you are exercising faith. All you have to do then, is to add works to your faith so as to become successful.
So faith is not blind acceptance of anything. You have simply learnt about faith wrongly, sorry to say.
I know what faith is. I don't need your help there.

Faith is not a reliable indicator of truth. Your infantile attempt to redefine the word to suit your purposes shows how flawed and childishly simplistic your argument has appeared, as well as your shortcomings in both reasoning and apparent experience.

Daejoyoung, for what it's worth, I strongly suggest you go back to whatever school you've been attending and get a refund. Your instructors have done you ZERO favors by filling your brain with the laughable nonsense currently spewing from it. Granted, it is mildly amusing and entertaining for me here. I somehow doubt, however, you spent all that money for the purpose of playing "Tickle Me Elmo" with a bunch of strangers on a chat site. Although, on a positive note, you at least have some fairly decent material to start a career as a stand-up comedian. Of course, you would have to polish it up a bit and work on you timing and delivery, but that just comes with practice. Hey, just trying to look out for your best interest.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by CaveAdullam: 9:56am On Jan 21, 2020
Tamaratonye1:

Your statement is built on a dishonest interpretation. I stated ...

"Based on your beliefs, your god is responsible for everything"

I debate my position as if it was based on your religion.

Ask a Muslim, ask a Roman Catholic, ask a protestant, ask anyone of any religion, they all state that their beliefs are based on faith. So many different positions, all defended by faith. Which is the right one? They can't all be correct. That is because their "faith" is not backed up by evidence or anything tangible, just an acceptance anyone can accept.
You do not believe God exists and at the same time you are asking me to prove His duty over the lives of innocent children.

Me I don't understand you o.

Tamaratonye1:
You can believe anything based on "faith", it is not the pathway to the truth.

Man up, take ownership of your faith in your god who gives innocent children cancer. Is your god responsible for everything? Yes or no.
You are guilty of the crime called "Faith."

Faith is first believe then work is deployed, this is no blind faith my brother.

Have you proven the existence of your mind like other parts of your body?
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 2:05pm On Jan 21, 2020
Bacteriologist:


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.
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.

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by triplechoice(m): 2:36pm On Jan 21, 2020
@bacteriologist below is your definition of faith and what you think it actually means in the Bible;



"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

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

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

1 Like

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 2:45pm On Jan 21, 2020
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.

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 2:58pm On Jan 21, 2020
triplechoice:

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.
Now, this is where I actually support bacteriologist, and appreciate what he is doing here!

Believing things one has no evidence for is detrimental to society and an individual's existence, and such beliefs must constantly be challenged, even by the individual who has the faith, as even the Christian faith teaches!

If I build a bridge without challenging the assumptions on which I'm building it, there's absolutely no guarantee that it would get you to the other side, which is why I ought to be challenged so I don't waste money and kill people.

The issue I do have with the op is that he judges the entire religion by the observation of an errant - I'd love to say, few, but the truth is - majority. His error however is that he does not separate the religion from those who practise the religion wrongly!

Below are two instructions from the manual advising against blind faith.

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 3:04pm On Jan 21, 2020
Bacteriologist:


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.
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.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 3:08pm On Jan 21, 2020
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)?
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 3:16pm On Jan 21, 2020
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.

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 3:24pm On Jan 21, 2020
Bacteriologist:


If you care about the truth, Faith is not enough.
The problem is that you can't even see when many agree with you. Go through your thread and see how many people have said that you need evidence for your faith and that untested faith is baseless, stupid, even.

Below is James saying the same thing.

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 3:25pm On Jan 21, 2020
Bacteriologist:


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.
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.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 3:28pm On Jan 21, 2020
Bacteriologist:


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.
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.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 3:30pm On Jan 21, 2020
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.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by triplechoice(m): 3:32pm On Jan 21, 2020
budaatum:

Now, this is where I actually support bacteriologist, and appreciate what he is doing here!

Believing things one has no evidence for is detrimental to society and an individual's existence, and such beliefs must constantly be challenged, even by the individual who has the faith, as even the Christian faith teaches!

If I build a bridge without challenging the assumptions on which I'm building it, there's absolutely no guarantee that it would get you to the other side, which is why I ought to be challenged so I don't waste money and kill people.

The issue I do have with the op is that he judges the entire religion by the observation of an errant - I'd love to say, few, but the truth is - majority. His error however is that he does not separate the religion from those who practise the religion wrongly!

Below are two instructions from the manual advising against blind faith.


Not everyone understands faith as you do .Among believers who claim to be guided by the holy spirit there is a lot of disagreement as to what faith actually means.

Some tell you just have faith and everything will work out fine.But is that enough ? Except one is attempting a leap of faith, faith without "evidence "is dead.It cannot work or it becomes a great struggle to acquire it

I still read the Bible but with a better understanding

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 3:33pm On Jan 21, 2020
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.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 3:36pm On Jan 21, 2020
Bacteriologist:


No one gives a shit what someone who believes in a talking snake and a talking donkey believes bud.
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".
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 3:39pm On Jan 21, 2020
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...
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 3:39pm On Jan 21, 2020
Bacteriologist:


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.
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!
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Bacteriologist(m): 3:44pm On Jan 21, 2020
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.
Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by Nobody: 3:48pm On Jan 21, 2020
Bacteriologist:
Let's discuss this "Faith" thing. Faith is like the single most important thing in religion and theism in general.

It is safe to say that the basis of theism is faith.

I hear Christians for example, talk about faith a lot and they say that once you have Faith a lot of things especially in the Bible begins to make sense.

Same thing with Muslims. "Faith" in Allah makes you believe that Islam is the true religion.

But my main point is this why would faith be required to know the truth?

A lot of things we recognise as facts and truths today do not require any sort of faith whatsoever.

Does anyone need faith to know that 1 + 1 = 2?

Is faith required to make an airplane glide in the air? Or a ship remain buoyant?

Does anyone need faith to know that water + clay makes mud?

Do you need faith to accept that whatever is thrown up gets pulled back down (except held up by an external force/obstacle?)

It looks like faith is needed only when believing something that cannot be demonstrated or shown to actually be true or exist.

And that is the greatest downfall of this thing called "faith." ANYONE can believe whatever they want and CLAIM it as true based on "Faith."

Christians even call it "evidence of things not seen." Then I can claim to have a dragon in my basement/backyard. And believe it on "faith."

Faith is a good way to believe in anything but is not a reliable way of determining the truth. And it is not enough to believe claims: especially those with heavy weight as god claims based on faith alone.

If you care about the truth, Faith is not enough.

What are your thoughts?

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 have 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 seen the money yet. But that alert is an evidence demonstrating that something is in ur account.

It can also be compared to a check issued 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.

1 Like

Re: Why Faith Is An Unreliable Way Of Determining Truth by budaatum: 3:53pm On Jan 21, 2020
Bacteriologist:


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...
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.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)

Should A Christain Be Moved By A Horoscope Prediction? / Pastor Orr Shocks His Congregation As He Flies Into Church During Service / Nigeria-guinea Next Saturday (0-1) Today's Prophesy By T.b. Joshua

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 158
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.