What's so great about faith?

[_Some Schmo]

That is certainly one fundamentalist/sopolistic (I.e. a mind that is rigidly closed to all but its own narrow world view) way of seeing my comments. And, in light of your evident mindset, it is not surprising that the best you can do by way of a countering what I said, is to laugh, re-assert your claim (ironically sans reasoning or evidence), and falsely accuse me of lacking intellectual honesty.

However, those less overly restricted/blinded by their way of thinking will recognize that my concept of faith fits rationally the first (and thus most commonly used) authoritative definition in the dictionary.

Well, I have to laugh. Most of what you say is laughable, so my reaction is understandable. If you can't see the reason in what I said (and I would expect no more from you), that's your problem, not mine.

And I have made it clear on several occasions the flavor of the word faith that I'm talking about, but if you, in your overly restricted/blinded way of thinking refuse to acknowledge that, to each their own. You're welcome to your rigidly closed to all but your own narrow world view.

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

[_wenglund]

That is certainly one fundamentalist/sopolistic (I.e. a mind that is rigidly closed to all but its own narrow world view) way of seeing my comments. And, in light of your evident mindset, it is not surprising that the best you can do by way of a countering what I said, is to laugh, re-assert your claim (ironically sans reasoning or evidence), and falsely accuse me of lacking intellectual honesty.

However, those less overly restricted/blinded by their way of thinking will recognize that my concept of faith fits rationally the first (and thus most commonly used) authoritative definition in the dictionary.

Well, I have to laugh. Most of what you say is laughable, so my reaction is understandable. If you can't see the reason in what I said (and I would expect no more from you), that's your problem, not mine.

And I have made it clear on several occasions the flavor of the word faith that I'm talking about, but if you, in your overly restricted/blinded way of thinking refuse to acknowledge that, to each their own. You're welcome to your rigidly closed to all but your own narrow world view.

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

In other words, you are basically saying: "I know you are...but what am I". And since I am disinclined to play your juvenile game, there doesn't appear to be much value in my responding to you further on the subject. The sandpile is all yours.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

I'm trying to get a sense of what you consider evidence.

What if 100 people see a crippled woman in a wheelchair get smacked in the head by an Evangelical leader and, miraculously healed, she starts dancing around the room? Would this then qualify as evidence? Would these people now be justified in having faith in God, having seen His miracles?

What if you were the crippled woman in the wheelchair. Would this be self internalized?

No, this would not be evidence of god. It would likely be more evidence that people are highly susceptible to suggestion.

If, somehow a crippled woman was healed by being smacked on the head, it would be a major breakthrough in the field of medicine. Cripples would start getting smacked in the head by doctors everywhere, because obviously, this would be a proven hypothesis, or, in other words, a theorem.

If I were to witness such an event, I would think it was most likely that the woman was never a cripple to begin with, and she was part of the preacher's act. Again, the suggestion that she's crippled based on the fact she's riding a wheelchair (or had crutches or whatever) is only a suggestion, and extremely weak evidence of a fact.

I think people have to understand that evidence must be properly attributed, as well. The event you described is not necessarily evidence of god. It's more like evidence of a con, or a theatrical event. If people believe it was god, it's evidence that people are easily fooled into believing things they want to believe. God is to witnessed, miraculous-seeming events what breasts are to beer. If advertisers can make you think of breasts when you think of their beer, you'll likely buy more. If preachers can make you think of god when they act out miracles, you'll likely worship with them more (and in turn, give them more money). But guess what... breasts actually have nothing to do with beer, except where people have created some relationship between the two in their imagination.

And if I were the woman, I wouldn't be seeing a preacher for my immobility, I'd be seeing a doctor. Clearly, if a preacher's best medicine is a smack in the head, they aren't worth s***, are they?

[_Some Schmo]

In other words, you are basically saying: "I know you are...but what am I". And since I am disinclined to play your juvenile game, there doesn't appear to be much value in my responding to you further on the subject. The sandpile is all yours.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, how else do you talk to juveniles with the expectation they'll understand unless you bring it down to their level? I'm just trying to meet you where you live, Wade.

Hope this helps.

Thanks, -Some Schmo-

[_Scottie]

I'm trying to get a sense of what you consider evidence.

What if 100 people see a crippled woman in a wheelchair get smacked in the head by an Evangelical leader and, miraculously healed, she starts dancing around the room? Would this then qualify as evidence? Would these people now be justified in having faith in God, having seen His miracles?

What if you were the crippled woman in the wheelchair. Would this be self internalized?

No, this would not be evidence of god. It would likely be more evidence that people are highly susceptible to suggestion.

If, somehow a crippled woman was healed by being smacked on the head, it would be a major breakthrough in the field of medicine. Cripples would start getting smacked in the head by doctors everywhere, because obviously, this would be a proven hypothesis, or, in other words, a theorem.

If I were to witness such an event, I would think it was most likely that the woman was never a cripple to begin with, and she was part of the preacher's act. Again, the suggestion that she's crippled based on the fact she's riding a wheelchair (or had crutches or whatever) is only a suggestion, and extremely weak evidence of a fact.

I think people have to understand that evidence must be properly attributed, as well. The event you described is not necessarily evidence of god. It's more like evidence of a con, or a theatrical event. If people believe it was god, it's evidence that people are easily fooled into believing things they want to believe. God is to witnessed, miraculous-seeming events what breasts are to beer. If advertisers can make you think of breasts when you think of their beer, you'll likely buy more. If preachers can make you think of god when they act out miracles, you'll likely worship with them more (and in turn, give them more money). But guess what... breasts actually have nothing to do with beer, except where people have created some relationship between the two in their imagination.

And if I were the woman, I wouldn't be seeing a preacher for my immobility, I'd be seeing a doctor. Clearly, if a preacher's best medicine is a smack in the head, they aren't worth s***, are they?

So evidence to you only exists within the scientific community where it can be tested and reproduced with reasonable regularity?

[_Some Schmo]

So evidence to you only exists within the scientific community where it can be tested and reproduced with reasonable regularity?

No, it's not restricted to the scientific community, although they're the ones most likely to identify and produce it, since that's they're thing. However, yes, it must be testable and reproducible with reasonable regularity.

[_Sam Harris]

I'm not against reason and logic, they have their place in this world, and a very big one that all should appreciate. I know that I do. But at times, they only show us where we are, and can get us no further. Their function is almost mathematical in a sense. There are simply some things in life you cannot treat as an equation. Reason paints an "as is" picture in many cases, whereas hope and faith paint a picture of "what can be". That picture may not necessarily be solidified, but it provides encouragement. I find it hard to believe that all we need in life is "what is" especially when "what is" is something so grim, even in today's world.

I asked in my last post for a solution to faith. Look around you, Schmo. Can you find something better? I keep seeing these posts about how great life is without it, but what are you and those living without faith doing that puts your life on a level above mine and those like me? I ask in all earnestness...

When you ask the question, "what are you and those living without faith doing that puts your life on a level above mine and those like me?" you have an implicit assumption going that we have the same priorities. I could only claim that what I was doing was of a higher level if we had common priorities, but we don't, so I can't. My priority is to understand reality at all costs, and to not make claims about reality without concrete evidence. It seems your priority is to find strength in the unknown and improvable. I have no problem with that at all. If it was both our priority to find strength in the unknown, you'd be living your life at a higher level than I am. The fact is, we have different values and goals.

But it's exceptionally fallacious to think that rational people have no thoughts of the future. You don't need faith to have a vision of where you'd like to be, and you don't need faith to have hope. And personally, I think it's a lot more gratifying to achieve one's goals completely on your own inner strength rather than giving credit to some imaginary force of some kind (ie "higher power").

All the strength I need comes from my own head and heart. No external forces necessary.

Schmo, one of the reasons why I've stopped coming to this forum a great deal has a lot to do with some of the behavior Tal covered in his "Fundamentalist Atheism" thread (behavior which I'm starting to see here), and also to do with the fact that you and those who hold your views only chose to see and reply to parts of my initial posts. I try so hard to find middle ground, and the lot of you just stomp on it so you can go away feeling all "rational". What the hell ever, seriously.

Faith and hope are synonyms, whether or not you like that. I'm sorry, but your views cannot change the dictionary. Also, if you do not like for Christians to imply that there is something wrong with your mind for not believing in God (as I have sought not to do out of respec for you), please extend the same courtesy.

Refer back to my initial post if you wish, and look at the lines about...

Schmo, you say faith is useless. I disagree. I understand why you feel that way, but sometimes I question why folks question concepts like this (faith, spirituality) because it's not the concept itself that should be questioned, rather the direction in which it is aimed. If you do not want to have faith in a higher spiritual power, fine. With that said, spirituality does not always have to be an external thing, even the Bible says that the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:20, and forgive me, I'm not trying to preach, I'm just trying to give some insight on what some of us Christians really think versus what some of you who do not believe in God think we think).

...

There's nothing wrong with having faith in yourself. And there's nothing wrong with having faith in someone you trust. Shades is right, a truly trustworthy person will want you to test their mettle.

You got caught up in the middle of that, exactly in where you wanted to be, in the place that put you intellectually superior to me and all other people who believe in "faith for faith's sake" (that is NOT what I believe in). Yet you still haven't provided this golden opportunity to what you believe is such a problem, all you did is give a weak version of, "well, if it works for you fine, but my brain is too highly tuned for that".

Your reply is disappointing and exactly why I'm growing tired of this board. I'm tired of all the supposed anti-god elite out there who think there's something wrong with your mind above other things if you believe in God. I don't go about my day doing anyone any harm, and that is not why I have my beliefs. I don't cling to them either, but I'd love for some of you strong and rational people to step into my shoes.

Your talk is so large on the other end of that computer screen.

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo, one of the reasons why I've stopped coming to this forum a great deal has a lot to do with some of the behavior Tal covered in his "Fundamentalist Atheism" thread (behavior which I'm starting to see here), and also to do with the fact that you and those who hold your views only chose to see and reply to parts of my initial posts. I try so hard to find middle ground, and the lot of you just stomp on it so you can go away feeling all "rational". What the hell ever, seriously.

Faith and hope are synonyms, whether or not you like that. I'm sorry, but your views cannot change the dictionary. Also, if you do not like for Christians to imply that there is something wrong with your mind for not believing in God (as I have sought not to do out of respec for you), please extend the same courtesy.

Refer back to my initial post if you wish, and look at the lines about...

Schmo, you say faith is useless. I disagree. I understand why you feel that way, but sometimes I question why folks question concepts like this (faith, spirituality) because it's not the concept itself that should be questioned, rather the direction in which it is aimed. If you do not want to have faith in a higher spiritual power, fine. With that said, spirituality does not always have to be an external thing, even the Bible says that the kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:20, and forgive me, I'm not trying to preach, I'm just trying to give some insight on what some of us Christians really think versus what some of you who do not believe in God think we think).

...

There's nothing wrong with having faith in yourself. And there's nothing wrong with having faith in someone you trust. Shades is right, a truly trustworthy person will want you to test their mettle.

You got caught up in the middle of that, exactly in where you wanted to be, in the place that put you intellectually superior to me and all other people who believe in "faith for faith's sake" (that is NOT what I believe in). Yet you still haven't provided this golden opportunity to what you believe is such a problem, all you did is give a weak version of, "well, if it works for you fine, but my brain is too highly tuned for that".

Your reply is disappointing and exactly why I'm growing tired of this board. I'm tired of all the supposed anti-god elite out there who think there's something wrong with your mind above other things if you believe in God. I don't go about my day doing anyone any harm, and that is not why I have my beliefs. I don't cling to them either, but I'd love for some of you strong and rational people to step into my shoes.

Your talk is so large on the other end of that computer screen.

I notice you're reading a lot into what I said that I never intended.

Sorry you feel that way.

[_Sam Harris]

Yeah, and I'm sure you never intended the quip about special-ed people and church either, right?

Just a cute little off-color joke. Until it's aimed at you by a rabid fundamentalist Christian, and then all hell breaks loose.

Whatever.

[_Mercury]

Yeah, and I'm sure you never intended the quip about special-ed people and church either, right?

Just a cute little off-color joke. Until it's aimed at you by a rabid fundamentalist Christian, and then all hell breaks loose.

Whatever.

Whats less retarded:

Believing in an imaginary friend or denial of the imaginary friend?

Whatever.