Religious children do not exist.

Author: Bones

Posts

Total: 114
Topic's author
#31
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@fauxlaw
 Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true. 
But how do you know they are true!! 

 It, therefore, comprises a six sense. 
Come on, please don't tell me your going to use this "faith" stuff as a serious argument for God in our up coming debate. You do realise that "faith" can be used to "prove" the exitance of every single God there is. 

Do you deny the ability of some animals to echolocate, and others to sense the Earth's magnetic field?
Echolocation is not magic. It is a testable survival technique which some animals have. 

To sense where blood vessels are in other animals with precision, though they are not seen?

Then, why not faith for man?
Notice how you compare testable abilities to supposed "faith". For example, echolocation can gauge a testable result, being the location of beings. The bats ability to hone in on blood vessels can gauge a testable result, being that they actually hit the blood vessel. Both these include a seemingly incredible result, paired with an explanation. However, I see no result in your faith. Sure, like the bat, you can propose that you have this "sixth" sense, but unlike bats who actually prove that they can hit the vein, you cannot prove any such thing. 
#32
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,356
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
You trifle with things you do not understand

It is always someone else that  "doesn't  understand" with you lot, isn't it. It is never yourselves.


Faith is to hope for things which are not seen,but which are true. 

Are you sure about that? 

Ok  so tell me man of letters and languages,    why O   why would one even bother with  HOPE if someone has total  faith in something to be "true"? OR   if one truly  has total  faith that something will happen or that something is totally "TRUE"?   

You see "hope" implies doubt, uncertainty, lack of faith and  disbelief. 

What  ever happened to "faith in god alone"?  Do the scriptures tell their  congregations to have " hope" that god will or might deliver ?  Or do the scriptures tell their congregations to have faith that  god will deliver and he will deliver?


Or is this just  you,  once again,   showing how completely bible ignorant you are and making things up as you go for the sake of making yourself appear to be right, knowledgeable and authoritative, of which you are neither.







#33
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you ignore, then, the prudence of teaching a child what faith is, and how it works? Faith is not synonymous with belief, nor religion. Faith is a concept of how to determine what ideas are true and that which is not true. A child can learn and apply that much. In fact, they can do it more easily than can adults.
Why would you ever, ever want to teach a child faith? 

Faith is absolutely not a concept of how to determine what ideas are true or not; it’s the very Antithesis of that. 

It’s basically how to be way more confident in a belief than you have any right to be based on the actual evidence, and in many cases how to maintain confidence in a belief despite logic and evidence refuting it.
Topic's author
#34
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Ramshutu
well stated. 
#35
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,285
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
Faith is the opiate of the religious. In a study called Mortallity rates of children over the last two millennia, across the entire historical sample the authors found that on average, 26.9% of newborns died in their first year of life and 46.2% died before they reached adulthood. Two estimates that are easy to remember: Around a quarter died in the first year of life. Around half died as children.
What has now drastically reduced these deaths, faith or science?
#36
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,356
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@FLRW
@fauxlawWhat has now drastically reduced these deaths, faith or science?


A+1
#37
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
You are describing attributes belonging to belief, not faith.  Many in the world think faith and belief are synonymous. No, they are not, but one must feel the results of real faith, and it’s power, to finally understand the distinction.
#38
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
Why must it be one or the other? Both may be in play. I certainly think so.
#39
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Not really, the two are effectively the same thing in a religious context.

It’s a form of trained denial; faith at its core is a method to hold a belief without evidence and often when in contradiction to the evidence.

Literally every definition of faith you will find anywhere, including The definition in hebrews which you misquoted: 

“Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen”

In reality, and how faith is applied by those who are religious: “faith is a conviction held without reason and defended against all reason” -Aron Ra
#40
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
I am not going to sit here and pick little freaking pieces of meat off of bone for you. I was very clear in my post I used a couple of examples to use for broad range. I mentioned politics I'm not going to mention every single type of politics or government specifically to make you happy. If you're unsure where I stand that is on you I have been clear.
#41
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Faith is just like any other action it is not specifically related to religion and it has nothing to do with science and medicine if people don't understand how to keep on a topic there's no point in speaking to those people..
#42
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
I cannot help that you insist on limiting your scope of what faith is, and the power it holds. Argue for your limitations; they’re yours. I do not share them. No, you are not going to obtain the evidence you demand by mere belief, and equating belief to faith, and using your five senses as evidence.  That is what you have been told your whole life. You are going to believe that just because it is what you are told?
#43
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I know heart and brain surgeons who disagree that faith has naught to do with medicine. You had it right the first time,  faith is like any other action, not restricted to religion. Faith is a powerful tool to enhance our body of knowledge in science.
#44
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I’m not limiting my scope of what faith is, what I described is what faith is. A form of denial.


What often happens is people like you pretend or act as if it reveals some truth, pointing to faith as if it’s some epistemological framework.

In reality, all you’re doing is pretending that you are right about things you can’t prove, and are often demonstrably wrong - and that’s what faith is. Simple Denial.


By all means, prove me wrong; real knowledge about the world has practical application.

Science as an epistemological framework has allowed us to harness the power of the electron, the, atom, the sun, has flown us into the sky, and to the moon, has produced vaccines, cured illness.

Tell me, what equivalent knowledge has come From the application of faith?



#45
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m not limiting my scope of what faith is, what I described is what faith is. A form of denial.
Show me the source of that claim, that faith is denial. I do not accept your credentials in this regard.
#46
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Ironically you’re asking for evidence and citation. No one ever asks for anything related to faith in an argument where they want to get the truth. Curious, right?


This is the clinical definition of denial:

“a defense mechanism in which unpleasant thoughts, feelings, wishes, or events are ignored or excluded from conscious awareness”

(https://dictionary.apa.org/denial)


Faith is used as a mechanism to allow people to maintain a belief despite a lack of evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary.


If you have uncertainty gnawing away at you, if your rational mind starts doubting; you will often be told to “have faith”; to suppress the rational problems your brain is grappling with, and simply believe.


If you’re being beaten by your partner, and refuse to leave because you’re convinced they love you, and they can change: that is denial.

If you’re subject to all manner of bad luck, and hardship that is not your fault, and convince yourself God loves you and “has a plan” - that’s “faith”

If your partner is cheating, and spins you all sorts of unbelievable stories, inconsistent narratives, etc to explain where they’ve been, why they keep being spotted with the same person in social settings; and you convince yourself they aren’t cheating - that’s denial.

If God is logically and morally inconsistent, the stories and narrative don’t make sense, and there are philosophical questions that don’t make sense, and there is no evidence for anything and you convince yourself he still exists - that’s faith

In this respect, almost by definition, faith is a form of denial.
#47
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Faith is used as a mechanism to allow people to maintain a belief despite a lack of evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
What's curious is that you offer a definition for denial, and then you claim it is identical to faith's definition, without evidence to support your opinion. I'll take it as such and stop asking you. You obviously will not demonstrate your error. Here is the perfect example of why one can drag a horse to water, but compelling it to drink is entirely the horse's decision. So, don't drink. Faith is a curious manifestation because only by each person's trial of its power can its power to lead to truth be felt for themselves; there is no way to demonstrate that for another. 
Topic's author
#48
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@fauxlaw
without evidence to support your opinion.
Also you 


#49
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Bones
One of the best definitions of faith ever offered. Evidence. 
#50
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
What’s curious, is that I have provided multiple repeated examples, arguments and justifications that you have ignored.

Doubly curious is why you keep demanding evidence whilst ignoring every difficult argument, as if evidence is the defining baseline of truth.

Triply curious, is that you’ve been given an opportunity to prove the validity of faith as some valid way of gaining knowledge and have ignored it.


Your complete inability to actually post an argument, and rely on vague vacuous tropes about what faith is, and try and yell loudly about how wrong I am really expresses how intellectually bankupt the faith position really is better than any argument I can make.

It seems you’re obviously terrified in engaging in an actual conversation, because you know your position is wrong; so you’re evading, dodging and generally trying to obtusely deny any contrary positions



Would you travel on a plane built by engineers working based on faith? You can either say no, or you can lie through your teeth; that is the inherent nature of faith. You don’t trust it on any matter where you need the answer to be true.


#51
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Bones
don't you have a debate argument to post? I'm already on round 3.  My practice: I don 't challenge a debate without having at least two rounds of argument already prepared; usually more. And I anticipate arguments from opponents and prepare rebuttals prior to their need so I'm ready for them in advance. It's a good practice.
Topic's author
#52
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Evidence is only evidence when everyone can see it, otherwise it's called a hallucination
#53
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Ramshutu
What’s curious, is that I have provided multiple repeated examples, arguments and justifications that you have ignored.

Doubly curious is why you keep demanding evidence whilst ignoring every difficult argument, as if evidence is the defining baseline of truth.

Triply curious, is that you’ve been given an opportunity to prove the validity of faith as some valid way of gaining knowledge and have ignored it.
You haven't been reading, and I will not repeat myself.

1. I have offered the detailed means of how to use faith. That you resist is on you.
2. See #1. These means must be put to trial be each individual. It cannot be done for them.
3. See #1, and #2. Just do it. As I've said, I cannot demonstrate it for you. Don't be a stubborn horse. Just drink the water.
#54
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Bones
Please note my #53 to Ramshutu.
#55
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Would you travel on a plane built by engineers working based on faith?
Do you check the credentials of the engineers before boarding a plane, that is after you personally observe all of the safety checks and inspections done before the flight? Or do you just board the plane, trusting that you will arrive safely at your destination?
#56
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
You’ve not really answered anything. You’re really just shouting at me for showing nothing, ignoring the whole argument; then running away.


You’re entire argument is based on self delusion; you’re trying to convince yourself that faith is much more than simply denial, by throwing out a whole bunch of meaningless babble about what faith means.

The reason that you’re no longer engaging and are running away, is because you can’t offer an argument against any of the things I’ve said and you’ve ignored.

Faith is most assuredly invoked in order to believe things for which there are no evidence. It is used to remain convinced of ones beliefs in the face of conflicting data and information (as in the examples I cited)

I even tied this back to the biblical definition of faith - that you misquoted which explicitly agree with me.

Faith is nothing more than training yourself you keep believing when the facts are against you, by your definition.


Running away from that conflicting data, is (as I quoted in the definition you ignored), simply denial.
#57
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you check the credentials of the engineers before boarding a plane, that is after you personally observe all of the safety checks and inspections done before the flight? Or do you just board the plane, trusting that you will arrive safely at your destination?
Neither.

Trust is qualified on facts.

For example, I know that there are safety checks, I know there are regulations, and I know the general safety records of the planes. I have factual data to support the conclusion that the plane is almost certainly not going to crash; and If that data changes probabilities my decisions would change.

For example, I likely wouldn’t have thought twice about flying on a 737 max after the crashes based on the generalized probability.


This is a typical issue with the way people present faith.

Riding on a plain is a tangible risk, for which we have evidence, and real information to inform the decision, and inform the trust.


Pilots are required to complete pre-flight tests: I don’t have faith that they will do it, I am convinced based on the overwhelming balance of known probabilities that’s they will do them.

At its root, as I said: the flight records are known. I am reasonably confident that the plane I am on is well designed and we will not crash; based on historic data from all other air travel.

That’s not faith.

Faith - as in religious faith - is having no probabilistic grounding, no actual facts, no basis on establishing the truth - and in some cases contradicted by evidence or probabilistic grounding but still concluding the belief is valid.


Now; if we could show heaven existed, we knew people who were good got into heaven - then you may be able to argue the two are similar.


The comparisons to real world examples are simply the same nutty false equivalence of people trying to mask their denial as simple probabilistic trust.


#58
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I have offered the detailed means of how to use faith. That you resist is on you.
I feel this warrants it’s own reply.

If you even marginally questioned whether science worked, and whether it could generate truth; what you would be faced with, is an unending wall of every major scientific discovery that has been spun into practical applications and improved our lives; it would be pointed out how 500 years of modern science has built our civilization and got us from the horse and cart, and leaches, to nuclear power, mrna vaccines and landing on the moon. Every time you said it, you’d face a list of all the times sciences has harnessed a new power, fixed a problem, or allowed us to exploit some new law of physics. It would be a deluge of facts, figures, examples, and proof.


That you’re response is not a wall of such accomplishments; or any accomplishments of any kind, but hand waving that you can’t show what faith can do - proves beyond any date that faith does absolutely nothing.
#59
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Right, you have all sorts of reasons to believe those things happened. And even though there are skeptics who would never set foot on a plane who aren't convinced by all that evidence you have, you know that they either haven't done the research or they just refuse to believe what is obvious.
Topic's author
#60
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Do you check the credentials of the engineers before boarding a plane, that is after you personally observe all of the safety checks and inspections done before the flight? Or do you just board the plane, trusting that you will arrive safely at your destination?
No because I know that my airline is responsible enough not to let some dude who's only qualification is "faith" build my plane.