Faith vs Blind Faith

Originally posted by Coletti
Your idea of faith also differs from almost all Christians and most dictionaries.

Hardly. If you read what dj2 posted carefully, you will notice that the people in the mist will die if they do nothing. Moreover, when the person jumps in the first example, he thinks that he might survive and find a way. Given that remaining offers him zero probability of surviving, and that jumping gives him some positive probability of surviving, reason tells him to jump.

The second case is exactly alike only the positive probability of surviving from jumping is increased. Case 2 is even more reasonable than the second.

These would have been faith (the religious type of faith) if he had claimed that he was sure that he would survive. For example, it would have been faith if he had claimed in case 1, yeah it's probably a long fall, but I believe on faith that there is a giant airbag at the bottom that will break my fall. Without assuming other information, there is no reason to think that a giant airbag lies at the bottom. Believing that one was there would be faith.

Originally posted by Coletti
Your idea of faith also differs from almost all Christians and most dictionaries.

You like to equivocate between

faith -

1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Your religious faith is of the nature in 2.

[edit: dictionary.com for these definitions]
The faith dj2 actually (unintentionally) describes in his post is 1.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How about the loading of a pair of each of the world's billions of species onto a boat and keeping them alive together for weeks by a staff of a handful of humans?

Try over a year (cf. Genesis 7:11, 8:13-14).

Nemesio

Originally posted by telerion
You like to equivocate between

faith -

1) Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Your religious faith is of the nature in 2.

[edit: dictionary.com for these definitions]
The faith dj2 actually (unintentionally) describes in his post is 1.

Neither case had a logical proof or depended on material evidence. Both were cases of a reasoned responses - one supported by evidence, and one not. If you claim there was material evidence then you would have to accept the Bible as evidence for justifying faith.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Try over a year (cf. Genesis 7:11, 8:13-14).

Nemesio

Speaking of Genesis, I'd also like to know if it's reasonable to believe that humans used to live for hundreds of years.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Speaking of Genesis, I'd also like to know if it's reasonable to believe that humans used to live for hundreds of years.

Sure.

Originally posted by Coletti
Sure.

How old was Noah reported to be? Almost 1000 years old? This is an outrageous claim. Is there any animal known to man that has an observed lifespan of even 200 years?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How old was Noah reported to be? Almost 1000 years old? This is an outrageous claim. Is there any animal known to man that has an observed lifespan of even 200 years?

Some species of tortoise, perhaps?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Some species of tortoise, perhaps?

Let us suppose there is such a tortoise, and that it is the creature with the longest observed longevity in modern times.

Is it reasonable to believe that a human lived 5 times as long as this creature, which has the longest observed longevity, and which itself lives twice as long as the most aged observed humans of modern times?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How old was Noah reported to be? Almost 1000 years old? This is an outrageous claim. Is there any animal known to man that has an observed lifespan of even 200 years?

Observed? I don't think you were around then.

Aging has is mainly a genetic issue. Theoretically, scientist are close to solving the problem of aging. In another 20 years, aging may be just another disease we have a cure for.

There's really nothing outrageous about it.

Originally posted by Coletti
Theoretically, scientist are close to solving the problem of aging. In another 20 years, aging may be just another disease we have a cure for.

You must be refering to the creation scientists.

Is it reasonable to argue with someone who believes in the fountain of youth?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think the existence of talking snakes is reasonable?

How about the loading of a pair of each of the world's billions of species onto a boat and keeping them alive together for weeks by a staff of a handful of humans?

What talking snakes? Who have you been taking to?

How many species were there then? I don't believe we have an inventory. And "species" has a loose definition according to modern biologist. And how may species may have evolved since then? Then how many of the animals where full grown and how many might have been infants. And do you know the gestation period for dinosaurs eggs? Most of the answers to these questions would be speculation.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You must be refering to the creation scientists.

Nope. I saw it on PBS, a NOVA show I think. But you know how untrustworthy those liberals running PBS are.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Let us suppose there is such a tortoise, and that it is the creature with the longest observed longevity in modern times.

Is it reasonable to believe that a human lived 5 times as long as this creature, which has the longest obse ...[text shortened]... es twice as long as the most aged observed humans of modern times?

Is it reasonable? Given that all mentions come from Genesis, probably not. Is it impossible, however?