"Faith is the basis for my belief"

Author: SkepticalOne

Posts

Total: 278
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
PGA2.0: Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ. Do you understand the deeper meaning there? 
Faith can be used to prop up any belief..even those which are demonstrably false. This makes "Faith" a completely worthless basis for belief.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
Not to the individual, it seems to me.
Seems to me that faith doesn't always appear out of nowhere, it usually occurs out of some persons experiences in life, or way in which they see life.
Reminds me a bit of instinct.
Not that I'd say follow every instinct you have, or that instincts can't be tricked, false, or misleading.
But instinct is worth paying attention to, I think.
But maybe flawed dichotomy in my example.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
If something else is needed determine if faith or instinct is a valid basis, then faith and instinct aren't the basis.
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,006
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
Almost any position can be justified by saying "I believe it's so, so it's so." Faith is not a reason to believe in anything, it's wrong far more often than it's right. Many people take on faith that one race is superior somehow to another. 
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Eh, maybe not 'the basis, but 'a chair leg is 'one of the bases for the chair standing up, even if there are other legs.
Some people just identify strongly with one reason or another.
If my eldest brother had been charged with the crime of trying to murder him, my faith in him would be a strong 'reason for me personally, in believing that he would not commit such an action.
Sure I could be wrong,
Sure you can't much expect other people to accept your beliefs just because you believe them.
Sure, I hold such a belief because of positive and loving interactions with him.
And sure maybe my opinion could change with enough evidence.

But the faith would remain a strong basis, I think.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Faith is inherently good
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,006
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
PGA2.0: Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ. Do you understand the deeper meaning there? 
Faith can be used to prop up any belief..even those which are demonstrably false. This makes "Faith" a completely worthless basis for belief.
Faith cannot be used to prop up any belief. That is like saying our legs prop up our legs. It makes no sense. Faith and belief are the same things. They are synonyms along with the word trust. 

Faith or belief or trust reflect our understanding of a particular fact.  We sit on a chair. The chair is an object of reality. We are an object of reality. We sit - or choose to sit on the chair because we have faith or trust or a belief that it will hold us up.  Now it is not our faith which holds us up. It is either the chair - or the principles of physics which allow us to sit our weight on it which holds us  up. Is it the principle of physics that holds us up? Probably not - principles don't really do anything, they are merely articulations or expressions of something more objective. Yet the outworking of the principle which when put into action enable a chair to be built and then used sat upon. So what holds us up? Is it the wooden stool or is it the expression of a principle? 

Yet I could say I have faith in the principle of physics - which allows me to trust that if I sit on this chair then I wont fall down.  

PGA2 position above is that faith or the trust he has in God comes from hearing a message.  In other words it did not arise from nowhere. Most people see a chair and automatically sit on it. It is  not like they consciously think, do I trust the principle of physics?  No they look at the chair - and assess it based on their own experience - their own weight and the way the chair looks. If they don't trust their gut feeling, they wont sit on it.  PGA's faith in God is based in part upon the message he has heard and weighed up based upon his own experience.  

People don't stand on faith alone - no one does. Yet faith is part of every human's life. And not only that - PGA is not saying he bases his life on faith - but on Jesus. Jesus is the object of reality. He has weighed up the message based upon his own experience - and it rings true for him.  On the other hand you probably could be accused on basing your life on less than that. You simply look at the world around you based on your own experience and form the conclusion that you are alone. The faith you have is in yourself. You trust yourself - but based on what? It is not as though you have never made errors of judgment or mistakes. Yet, despite that knowledge, you still trust yourself. Now the question is why? Why would you think that trusting yourself is ok - but that if someone else says that they trust God because they have come to this conclusion based on their own experience it is wrong - such that you have to argue the point?  After all, they are not perfect, just like you are not perfect. It seems a bit hypocritical to me. 


Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,555
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@ludofl3x
Why not have faith in our creator?
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Wait, so "lemming" is Leaning on DDO?
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Jah.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
To my belief faith is not needed. My belief is that if facts disprove god, he exists not. The day I convert to theism is the day we discover a god. If we don’t discover a god, then I am non-theist.

Faith is not needed. You can either prove he exists or you can’t. Why have faith when you have facts? 
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
Hm, you made a post titled "Facts are fundamentally just feelings", though. . .
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
PGA2.0: Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ. Do you understand the deeper meaning there? 
Faith can be used to prop up any belief..even those which are demonstrably false. This makes "Faith" a completely worthless basis for belief.

Faith is belief or trust and is something we tend to place in our origins and things we can't verify empirically, or with certainty. None of us were there to experience the origins of life, existence, or the beginning of the universe if it had a beginning. We cannot confirm scientifically origins in such things by repeating the process to confirm it.

Our worldview start with core presuppositions, for instance, either God is and He is our Creator, or chance happenstance is why we exist would be two such beginnings that we build upon. Another would be whether God is a personal being or impersonal such as "Mother Nature," such as a force, even though we give it human attributes in describing the natural realm.  It requires faith for such core or basic beliefs since they are outside the scope of scientific verification in the sense that we are in the present looking back into the past. It is not repeatable or verifiable in that we can recreate the process to confirm it. Thus, for many, the present is the key to the past. This belief assumes that we can fathom how things were and their timeline from what is available to us in the present. For Christians, the biblical God is the key to the past.

Faith can be rational, irrational, or blind. We can have good reason for why we believe what we do, we can have poor and illogical reasons for our belief (or a reason that does not add up or make sense), or we can have no or very little reason, or blindly accept that we are here and that is enough for us.  Although not all Christians have a rational faith based on reason and logic (some believe without question), we believe God has given us a rational mind to know Him and discover His majesty and the magnificence of what He has made and revealed not only in the created order - the universe - but also in the biblical testimony. And there are many confirmations that His word is true. Thus, we are capable of reasoning with God through His word. Thus, the universe is a reflection of our God. It pours forth His knowledge in the mathematical precision of the laws of nature we discover. It reflects His wisdom in the moral nature He has given us as reasoning beings. We can't adequately explain morality without first presupposing God as the source because morality is a mindful thing yet not every mind is necessary for the existence of morality. I would still function as a moral being if you did not exist, and visa versa. If morality is preferential (relativism) it begs the question of whose preference and what makes that good? It also begs the question of how there can be "better" or goodness if there is no best or ultimate measure/reference point. So, you derive values, meaning, and purpose that constantly impose themselves on your mind. You are constantly searching for meaning, you seek out and create purpose and values, but in a chance happenstance universe ultimately they are meaningless. Ultimately, there is no purpose. Thus, you are delusional. Thus, that worldview is inconsistent with your belief. Why do you still hold it? The atheist or agnostic keeps borrowing from the Christian worldview that gives such thinking a solid basis. You as a human being are drawn towards meaning and purpose. You would not be on this forum in this discussion if that were not the case. You continually find meaning and purpose when you investigate the workings of the universe (anthropic principle) for there is information in things in the universe. The logical reason is that God made them. Information hints at mindfulness and design. If you saw the words, "Welcome to England" on a billboard as you enter Heathrow airport you do not think that it just willy-nilly appeared over millions of years but that someone designed it to convey information to you. DNA is an informational system. You also find a causal tree of why events happen that you trace back to a point in time for everything that has a beginning seems to have something (or someone) behind it that gives it a reason for its existence. Everything begs intentionality and knowledge in our investigation of it, but again, blind indifferent chance happenstance is not intentional or mindful in any way so once again the atheist or agnostic is inconsistent from their core beliefs. Their core beliefs (what everything else rests upon) do not add up. Thus, the atheist or agnostic clings to a blind faith for their starting presuppositions that can include 1) there is no God, or 2) everything is a result of blind indifferent chance happenstance, and do not add up.  
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Intelligence_06
To my belief faith is not needed. My belief is that if facts disprove god, he exists not. The day I convert to theism is the day we discover a god. If we don’t discover a god, then I am non-theist.

Faith is not needed. You can either prove he exists or you can’t. Why have faith when you have facts? 
Your first sentence is muddled.  Belief and faith are interchangeable words.  In other words, your belief is your faith.  Your second sentence is illogical.  There are no facts that can prove a negative.  In other words it is impossible to prove a negative.  Your third sentence talks of discovering God.  Please explain to us what facts you would accept as evidence of God being discovered and then justify why you have this knowledge about God.  Your fourth sentence is curious as it seems you have not explained your third sentence. 

Thanks for your thoughts by the way.  Yet if it please the court - I have not yet seen any evidence anywhere that presents sufficient reason to disprove God exists. In other words every fact I observe actually demonstrates the existence of God.  Faith is not the means of discovering God.  God is the means of understanding faith. 
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Faith and belief are the same things.
I'll have to disagree with you there. I think I could have qualified my statement better. After all, knowledge is a belief - a justified true belief. So, perhaps in a limited sense, faith and belief can be the same thing, but not all faith is the same thing as all belief.

I also object to faith being equated to trust. If nothing else, there is a religious connotation to faith. Beyond that, trust is something that is generally earned (based on evidence) and faith is trust without evidence....if you have evidence, then you don't need faith.

Hopefully this clears up the definitions I am using and allows us to communicate a little better.


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Lemming
'a chair leg is 'one of the bases for the chair standing up, even if there are other legs.

And you liken a dead piece of wood to the human mind that can be tricked, manipulated and coerced. 
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
Eh, maybe not 'the basis, but 'a chair leg is 'one of the bases for the chair standing up, even if there are other legs.
Faith is meaningless as a justification for a belief. Try to name one belief which cannot be held on faith, and maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Stephen
Oh jah, I was totally saying the human mind is a dead piece of wood, how insightful you are in reading my arguments.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Hm, I don't quite get what you're saying in post #18. . .
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Faith is belief or trust and is something we tend to place in our origins and things we can't verify empirically, or with certainty. None of us were there to experience the origins of life, existence, or the beginning of the universe if it had a beginning. We cannot confirm scientifically origins in such things by repeating the process to confirm it.
Religious faith and trust are not synonymous. That's an equivocation. Trust is built on evidence, whereas faith is trust without warrant. Often when a believer is unable to describe a reason for his belief "I just have faith" is the justification. "I just have trust" (for no reason) won't work in the same way because the words don't mean the same thing.

That being said, there is nothing that cannot be believed on faith ...demonstrating faith is not a path to knowledge. 

Your last paragraph is a gish gallop wall of words. I'm cool with honest conversations, and that's not it.



SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
I'm saying faith cannot be any part of the foundation of a justified belief. If you have a four legged chair missing a leg, it will be unstable. Faith provides no legitimate justification or support.

Can some one believe in Allah on faith? What about Zeus? How about believing on faith that black people are superior to white people or that atheists don't deserve to be alive? Unfortunately, faith can be used for any of these beliefs. 
Furthermore, given that some beliefs contradict, if faith is on both sides (Jesus is lord/Allah is lord) then it is meaningless.


Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
"Religious faith and trust are not synonymous. That's an equivocation."
Mm, yeahh. . See the thing is, when I do a Google search for synonyms of faith, one of the matches is trust.
And when I do a Google search of synonyms of trust, one of the matches is faith.
. . .
A persons inability to articulate themselves and the reasons that they have faith or trust in someone or something, doesn't mean to me there's no reason for their trust or faith.
To me it leaves up the possibility that they just don't have a talent for articulation, that or they just don't have their experiences and reasons too strongly thought out and writ.

"there is nothing that cannot be believed on faith"
I don't really get what you're saying there.
I could understand it well enough if you were claiming that, there is nothing that can be believed on faith, though I'd disagree.
Maybe you're saying, there is nothing that can be disbelieved on faith?
But that seems pretty easy for me to disagree with as well,
So I still don't really get what you're saying by,
"there is nothing that cannot be believed on faith"

"gish gallop wall of words" . . . ? . . .
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Lemming
I'm saying anything and everything can be believed "on faith". 
Faith and trust *can* be synonyms, but not in this context. A religious faith is 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen'. Meaning faith is is not just trust, but, per the Bible, evidence.

Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Sigh, you press my memories farther than I care about really. . .
Still,
There 'is some real history in the Bible,
If I can believe in American history now, I could believe in the Bible back then.
There are Biblical lessons that taught practicality in life,
If I can believe in game theory now, I could believe in Biblical practicality back then.
There are parts of the Bible that contain humility, kindness, empathy.
If I can believe in nature and nurture, humanity and habit, now, I could believe in those parts of the bible then.
There are religious families which lead through example, who show themselves to their children, as people worthy of their trust in them.
 If I can understand human nature, patterns, and such now, I could believe in my parents as worthy of my trust then.

Though I'm an atheist now.
My faith back then was not unjustified, did not appear from nowhere.
It was. . . Bah, I'm rambling.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Faith's a justified belief in itself, to my thinking anyhow.
People can possess many beliefs, based at least partially upon faith I think.
And contradictions aren't an end all be all I think.
Courts and debates have two sides of a case being argued. And sometimes there's parts that don't clear up, but remain in contention, but a decision is reached none the less.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Faith is belief or trust and is something we tend to place in our origins and things we can't verify empirically, or with certainty. None of us were there to experience the origins of life, existence, or the beginning of the universe if it had a beginning. We cannot confirm scientifically origins in such things by repeating the process to confirm it.
Religious faith and trust are not synonymous. That's an equivocation. Trust is built on evidence, whereas faith is trust without warrant. Often when a believer is unable to describe a reason for his belief "I just have faith" is the justification. "I just have trust" (for no reason) won't work in the same way because the words don't mean the same thing.
Faith not synonymous with trust? You are trying to fit your definition to the word. Where do you get this stuff from? Why would you put faith in something or someone you do not trust? Faith has an object or person we put trust in. We, as Christians,  place our trust in Jesus Christ. We believe that what the NT gospels says is His words and an account of His life, mostly the last three and a half years of His life.

***

Definition of faith
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: allegiance to duty or a person:... 
b(1): fidelity to one's promises
(2): sincerity of intentions 
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction 


Choose the Right Synonym for faith
Noun
BELIEFFAITHCREDENCECREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptanceBELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer.  my belief that I had caught all the errors  FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof.  an unshakable faith in God  CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent.  a theory now given credence by scientists  CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof.  gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness 

***

noun
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

That being said, there is nothing that cannot be believed on faith ...demonstrating faith is not a path to knowledge. 
While your underlined statement can be true I have already discussed this in identifying three types of faith - 1) blind faith (as underlined in your last statement), 2) reasonable or rational faith, in which logic and reason is applied, or, 3) Irrational or illogical faith.

With reasonable faith, such as Christianity is, something (Chritian doctrine) and Someone (God) very specific is believed and trusted. Once you go outside the orbit of what is written with bazaar interpretations that do not represent the Author's words you are in the domain of irrational faith as applied to Christianity. For those who just trust without verification or finding reasons (blind faith), they are okay as long as their fundamentals are sound, IMO. There are some things you simply have to believe to be a Christian, such as in Jesus Christ (the object of our faith) and to an extent in His substitutionary atonement in meeting the requirements of God. Our good works do not meet the standard of God. Repentance for sin is also necessary, and some would argue water baptism.  

Your last paragraph is a gish gallop wall of words. I'm cool with honest conversations, and that's not it.

It is something you do not wish to accept and are closed to, so you villanize my words as gish gallop. You are not the only scope or purpose of my words. I'm explaining something important, whether you think so or not. Then you ad hom me, implying I am not being honest. I was totally sincere in what I said.

***

Your thought process is misrepresentative and deconstructive. To say faith is not trust or synonymous with trust boggles my mind. 

***

Faith, inner attitude, conviction, or trust relating human beings to a supreme God or ultimate salvation. In religious traditions stressing divine grace, it is the inner certainty or attitude of love granted by God himself. In Christian theology, faith is the divinely inspired human response to God’s historical revelation through Jesus Christ and, consequently, is of crucial significance.

In biblical Hebrew, “faith” is principally juridical: it is the faithfulness or truthfulness with which persons adhere to a treaty or promise and with which God and Israel adhere to the Covenant between them. 

Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Lemming
Does that contradict within? Well, Nope.

Well, I believe that what most people believe is true, and the only way to make an unpopular popular is to justify it to make people believe in it, given that we do not have memory-editing technology. 

So far, what I believe is true for me until I find a better response that surpasses the old justification. This is how we, and the world change beliefs. I, too believed the earth is flat when I was 5, but after stumbling upon thousands of NASA pictures and homemade rocket camera proof(before it was even taught in class!) have proven curvature and thus the earth is round. The latter surpasses the former in terms of authenticity, so that is why I now prefer the latter.

Truth change. Back then the truth is God 100% exists. That is what most people believes. Those who justifies their atheist belief will be punished for some reason. What people believes, there lies the truth. We don't know whether we are actually encountering the truth, or we are just encountering one false attempt trying to explain real stuff. There is a chance that our entire science system is completely wrong. You might say, why are there so many justifications? Well back then where God dominated, the scriptures explain as well as science do here, within the role.

There is no such thing as 100% true. Only between 0 to 100. Albeit very small, there is a chance that everything we know is purposely wrong, told by our family and friends because they want to fool me out of life.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
You might see people blabbing on the streets. The elders might be convinced by their "health pills", but you, as a young fellow, do not. 

They list a lot of biological knowledge that the common man would be convinced but any bio major would pat their head and shake it.

It is not "Is this evidence true?" Instead it is "Is this reliable evidence to you?"

You only believe in whatever you think is true. If you consider this evidence unreliable, then you won't trust it as true information.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
-->
@Lemming
Not necessarily just feelings. What I am trying to convey is that truth is subjective to all people, and it is impossible to justify objective truth. truth, at this point, is just what the common person believes.