Originally posted by convectSo would you agree with me that the difference between 'faith' and 'belief' is not one of quantity, nor is it one of validity, but rather it has more to do with 'faith' implying the expectation of benefit?
I do not use the word "faith" to describe anything about my life. I generally find words like "trust" and "belief" do just fine.
I do not have faith that God does not exist. I simply do not have faith that he does, and I have no reason to believe. I find the arguments against the existence of God to be almost as unsatisfying as the arguments FOR. The ...[text shortened]... nd became one through that process of genuinely withholding faith--I see I was wrong.
Though maybe I have been missing the possibility that people who expect benefit from something, unreasonably assign greater credulity to it. If so, I think it is related to the lottery effect ie the sight of a reward causes us to over estimate the likelihood of receiving it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadthey frequently resort to proclaiming a justification that they do not really believe to be accurate
The problems you describe here are clearly recognized by many theists and hence they frequently try to find other ways to justify their belief in the existence of God. Sadly they frequently resort to proclaiming a justification that they do not really believe to be accurate, or in other cases glossing over the weaknesses in their argument, or in other cases making up outright lies.
Could you explain in more detail what you mean by this?
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo would you agree with me that the difference between 'faith' and 'belief' is not one of quantity, nor is it one of validity, but rather it has more to do with 'faith' implying the expectation of benefit?
So would you agree with me that the difference between 'faith' and 'belief' is not one of quantity, nor is it one of validity, but rather it has more to do with 'faith' implying the expectation of benefit?
Though maybe I have been missing the possibility that people who expect benefit from something, unreasonably assign greater credulity to it. If so, I ...[text shortened]... effect ie the sight of a reward causes us to over estimate the likelihood of receiving it.
Are you construing "the expecation of benefit" in terms of egoistic motivations? I'm not sure I would think of it as "expectation of benefit", but one thing about 'faith' that does ring true to me is something bbarr said in his #1 description: namely, that it seems strange to think of 'faith' in purely cognitive terms; rather, it should at least partially involve conative states. I think your notion may confuse the following two ideas: (1) that faith implicates the will or otherwise implicates broadly "pro-" attitudes toward the object of faith and (2) that faith implicates egoistic motivations related to reward or benefit. Basically, even if the objects of faith are always coveted or cherished, I don't see why this implicates "expectation of benefit". I think faith could be consistent with cases in which the person believes the odds are heavily against him (and thus it is difficult to understand how there could be a genuine expectation of success). What do you think about this?
Originally posted by LemonJelloI know a creationist. He has very little scientific education, but has been taught by his Church that the stories in Genesis are to be taken literally. As far as I can tell he believes this to be true. He believes the earth to be approximately 6000 years old because he believes in God, and he believes what his Church teaches, not because of any direct evidence of the age of the earth.
[b]they frequently resort to proclaiming a justification that they do not really believe to be accurate
Could you explain in more detail what you mean by this?[/b]
He is quite ready to argue at length on matters of fossils, evolutionary Biology, etc, and will defend any argument that a fellow creationist puts up, simply because it seems to support his faith. After much discussion however he will often admit the flaw in any given argument and then move on to the next.
The same seems to apply in what at first sight seem to be far more rational Christians, who fully admit the validity of evolutionary theory etc, but the moment you mention that Jesus might not actually have existed they will readily spout as fact a number of claims supporting their beliefs. But further discussion often reveals that they do not believe in those claims themselves or simply do not know enough about them to defend them, but just grabbed whatever came to mind.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you regard the evidence for evolutionary theory as equal to that of the putative non-existence of Jesus? That is a tall claim.
I know a creationist. He has very little scientific education, but has been taught by his Church that the stories in Genesis are to be taken literally. As far as I can tell he believes this to be true. He believes the earth to be approximately 6000 years old because he believes in God, and he believes what his Church teaches, not because of any direct evi ...[text shortened]... or simply do not know enough about them to defend them, but just grabbed whatever came to mind.
Beetle dude, poet, philosopher and slapheid extraordinaire this one is for you, i tried to find your original post but being a self confessed dunderheid i couldnae, so in defense of the Christians with whom you know i sympathize i thought i would state the Biblical viewpoint, which they themselves aught to have done, anyhow
1 NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, literally - the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses] - Amplified Bible
another translation puts it more succinctly
'Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld'. Hebrews 11:1
in the original Greek, Westcort and Hort text , Greek interlinear
'Is but faith of (things) being hoped for sub-standing, of things reproof not (things)being looked at'.
now how are we to understand what is being said?
well it seems that rather than having firm belief in something for which there is no proof, far from supporting that idea, the bible in this instance stresses just the opposite. faith it seems is based on facts, on realities, on truth, thus a person having faith has a guarantee that everything promised by god is as good as fulfilled and so strong is the convincing proof of these unseen realities that faith is said to be equivalent to that evidence.
however in this case the Greek word hypostasis is rendered 'assured expectation' and was commonly used in ancient papyrus business documents to convey the idea of something that guarantees future possession. scholars Moulton and Milligan suggest the rendering, 'faith is the title deed of things hoped for,' from book vocabulary of the Greek testament ,obviously, if a person possesses the title deed to property, he can have the 'assured expectation' that someday his hope to obtain it will be realized.
also the Greek word translated 'evident demonstration' elegkhos, conveys the idea of presenting evidence to demonstrate something, particularly something contrary to what appears to be the case so, positive or concrete evidence makes clear what previously went undiscerned, thereby refuting what only appeared to be the case. so in both the hebrew and the greek scriptures, faith is by no means 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof', on the contrary, faith is based on truths evident or perceived.
what 'realities', are we talking about, well for example Romans 1:20 talks about Gods qualities being clearly discernible from the physical creation, the actual creation itself is held to be evidence of the types of qualities that God himself possesses, thus we see power and justice etc etc. also scriptures like psalms 19:1 talks about the heavens 'declaring', the glory of god and the creation showing his handiwork, thus the orderliness and beauty of the physical universe and cosmos, the microcosm and the intricacy of say a single cell are all held to be an evident demonstration of the reality of God, however faith is not the benefactor of all and must be cultivated through study and a whole host of other activities, the scriptures talk of 'exercising', faith suggesting action on the part of the individual; an effort if you like needs to be put forth to grasp it, but in conclusion and i cannot emphasis this enough, biblical faith is not an ignorant readiness to believe something on weak or insufficient evidence rather it demands intelligence and effort to acquire, as is seen from the list of individuals Paul mentions in the latter Part of Hebrews 11
so i gave you my word beetle me fellow poet i would enter the spiritual forum even though i did not want to, so after i post this if i don't see you no more in this world i meet you on the next one, and don't be late, cause lord dem atheists knows i is a voodoo chile baby, voodoo chile an get yer butt up to the chess only forum, dem crazy Sicilian dragon players are gonna castle kingside with a dragon slayer hard on our heels playing the Yugoslav attack, we are doomed i tell ya, pure doomed!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut I clearly asked ye ye leggedy beastie to reply to me questions at yer thread "are atheists real", not herrrrrrrrrrre; so go back there, Chikin!
Beetle dude, poet, philosopher and slapheid extraordinaire this one is for you, i tried to find your original post but being a self confessed dunderheid i couldnae, so in defense of the Christians with whom you know i sympathize i thought i would state the Biblical viewpoint, which they themselves aught to have done, anyhow
1 NOW FAITH is the assu ...[text shortened]... r heels playing the Yugoslav attack, we are doomed i tell ya, pure doomed!
Anyway the "faith" issue is huge and the definitions too many; your interpretation describes just the principles that they form the teleological prove -a view which I understand but I dismiss, as you will see if you check this thread thoroughly.
On the other hand over here will arise for ever the definition problem as addressed by our friends bbarr, vistesd and Palynka, so it will be very hard to get a centralised debate; I don't know which way convect will continue from now on!
Hey robbie, by the way get ready: on this very Monday I will produce my "Ode of the Victory against that Frenchie robbie". You can run but you can't hide🙂
Originally posted by Conrau KNo I don't and I didn't claim to.
Do you regard the evidence for evolutionary theory as equal to that of the putative non-existence of Jesus? That is a tall claim.
My point is that the typical Christians reasons for believing that Jesus did exist are not reasons that they can easily give as evidence when trying to convince others. As a result they are forced to either admit that they do not have good evidence, or they must find another line of evidence. I find it sad that they often, in apparent desperation, will grab at any line of evidence they can find regardless of whether they personally think the line of evidence is valid.
I personally think that the documentary evidence that Jesus existed is far from solid. I find very few Christians willing to admit that, even though documentary evidence is not the reason (nor necessary) for their beliefs.
Originally posted by convectfaith is complete confidence in someone or something expressed in a non-meritorious way.
What do you mean when you say the word, "faith"? What is faith to you, and what role does it play in your life?
It's only fair that I answer first, so here goes: I regard "faith" as "belief in something whether or not I know it to be true." It starts from that nugget, and then the belief becomes encompassing, and I "know" (i.e., I feel like I know, and ...[text shortened]... to convert us, and, please, atheists, let's not try to convert them, either.
Originally posted by twhiteheadPerhaps we simply find the "documentary evidence" to be flawed.
No I don't and I didn't claim to.
My point is that the typical Christians reasons for believing that Jesus did exist are not reasons that they can easily give as evidence when trying to convince others. As a result they are forced to either admit that they do not have good evidence, or they must find another line of evidence. I find it sad that they ofte ...[text shortened]... it that, even though documentary evidence is not the reason (nor necessary) for their beliefs.
Originally posted by PinkFloydI am not sure what you are saying. Can you expand it a bit?
Perhaps we simply find the "documentary evidence" to be flawed.
If you are simply admitting that the documentary evidence for Jesus' existence is flawed then I have no objections, and commend you on your honesty.
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou quoted:
Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about.
Could you wax eloquent a bit?
"faith is complete confidence in someone or something expressed in a non-meritorious way."
And right then I asked you:
-- So when somebody acts the way he acts in order to "be saved", he acts not in a "non-meritous way"?
Furthermore, the person that should "wax eloquent a bit" is you. It 's not me but you the one who believes that the "not truly born by God" persons are invaded by the spirit of the Antichrist.