Why Atheists Get the Idea of "Faith" Wrong

[Unknown Soldier]

The worse problem for faith is when there's new and better evidence but it doesn't result in a loss of confidence. It proves their confidence/trust is from something other than reason and evidence.

And that's exactly what I've seen several atheists on this thread doing. Despite my documenting with links that the religious do not understand faith as belief without reason or evidence, the atheists here keep denying it.

The creationists who come to IIDB to demonstrate their reasons and evidence also get their reasons and evidence torn apart.

Do they agree that that their reasons and evidence get "torn apart"? That's a very subjective judgment on your part. Anybody can cheer for their favorite team.

But do they lose faith in their conclusions? NOPE. And if the reasons fail but the faith's still there, their faith must be emotion-based and not reason-based.

But I've seen atheists do that too--on this very thread. It's human nature to be biased clinging to pet ideas. For example I posted the the meaning of faith from Wikipedia that I was using:

Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid, is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept. In the context of religion, faith is "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion".

But despite this documentation, that meaning of faith was either ignored or even denied by the atheists here. So who is demonstrating blind faith?

Such "reasons and evidence" are called "rationalizations". Rationalization is "the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate: most people are prone to self-deceptive rationalization | they justify themselves with ingenious rationalizations" (New Oxford American Dictionary).

True, but we're all prone to rationalizing our behavior. Doubting God is obviously no cure for that.

So what matters to me isn't God or the absence of God--what matters to me is the truth. And I will take to task anybody who plays fast and loose with the truth.

 

[steve_bank]

And for the thousandth time, I'm not arguing that the logic and evidence for religious beliefs is as good as the logic and evidence for science. The quality of the logic and evidence is a different issue. I'm arguing that the religious cite logic and evidence for their beliefs, and it is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive to deny they do so.

Would you say religious and scientific conclusions are equally valid?

What did I just get done posting?

You have been equvacating since you started the thead.

You have said things like 'religious evodence is not as good as scientfic evidence, still infering that scientific faith in demonstrated theory is the same as religios faith.

So again.

Should science and religious theories be considered equally valid?

This s a yes no question.

To answer yes or no explicitly probably conflicts with your reasoning. You can't have it both ways. You can not say religious and scientific faith are the same faith and by your reasoning say no.

Maybe its one of tose so called logical conundrums. Religious and scentific faith can not have the same basis and at the same time not be equally valid.

 

[bilby]

For example I posted the the meaning of faith from Wikipedia that I was using
...
But despite this documentation, that meaning of faith was either ignored or even denied by the atheists here.

Sure. But nobody (except you) is discussing the meaning you are using; The question is about the meaning Christians use. Which is found not in wikipedia, but in the Bible; And about the meanings other theists use, which again, are found in their scriptures and traditions, not on wikipedia.

Your personal opinion about faith, or that of wikipedians, is utterly irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not theists in general agree or disagree with atheists in general about its meaning. That's why it was ignored.

It's not all about you.

 

[steve_bank]

From Soldier's link.

Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.[1][2] In the context of religion, faith is "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion".[3] According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, faith has multiple definitions, including "something that is believed especially with strong conviction," "complete trust", "belief and trust in and loyalty to God", as well as "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof".[4]

Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, or evidence,[5][6] while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.[7][8]

No problem as a general descrption of the multiple meanings of faith.

The key prase in relation ro regions is

"belief and trust in and loyalty to God", as well as "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof".[4]

Religion is a belief with strong conviction in things with no proof. The antithesis of science.

I think Soldier's link is a clear case of 'being hoisted by one's own petard'.

Redirect Notice

 

[Unknown Soldier]

And for the thousandth time, I'm not arguing that the logic and evidence for religious beliefs is as good as the logic and evidence for science. The quality of the logic and evidence is a different issue. I'm arguing that the religious cite logic and evidence for their beliefs, and it is either ignorant or deliberately deceptive to deny they do so.

Would you say religious and scientific conclusions are equally valid?

What did I just get done posting?

You have been equvacating since you started the thead.

You have said things like 'religious evodence is not as good as scientfic evidence, still infering that scientific faith in demonstrated theory is the same as religios faith.

So again.

Should science and religious theories be considered equally valid?

This s a yes no question.

To answer yes or no explicitly probably conflicts with your reasoning. You can't have it both ways. You can not say religious and scientific faith are the same faith and by your reasoning say no.

Maybe its one of tose so called logical conundrums. Religious and scentific faith can not have the same basis and at the same time not be equally valid.

Do you have any questions regarding the comparison of the validity of science and religion?

 

[steve_bank]

I have the same question again for Soldier.

Does scientific faith and religious faith have equal validity?

Yes or no without equivocations.

Must have gone over your head. The descriptions of faith in your link is not what you have been arguing. You have been arguing there is only one faith. As such religious faith not subject to experimental proof and scientfic faith expermntally demomstred by your rekoning have equal validty.

If I am wrong about you , then just answer the question yes or no.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I have the same question again for Soldier.

Does scientific faith and religious faith have equal validity?

Yes or no without equivocations.

Must have gone over your head. The descriptions of faith in your link is not what you have been arguing. You have been arguing there is only one faith. As such religious faith not subject to experimental proof and scientfic faith expermntally demomstred by your rekoning have equal validty.

If I am wrong about you , then just answer the question yes or no.

Do you have any questions regarding if religious and scientific faith have equal validity?

 

[pood]

I have the same question again for Soldier.

Does scientific faith and religious faith have equal validity?

Yes or no without equivocations.

Must have gone over your head. The descriptions of faith in your link is not what you have been arguing. You have been arguing there is only one faith. As such religious faith not subject to experimental proof and scientfic faith expermntally demomstred by your rekoning have equal validty.

If I am wrong about you , then just answer the question yes or no.

Do you have any questions regarding if religious and scientific faith have equal validity?

Uh … yeah … he … asked that question. And you are repeating his question instead of answering it? What’s up with that?

Also, as this thread has firmly established, science does not use ”faith“ in the religioius sense of the word.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

From Soldier's link.

Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant, or evidence,[5][6] while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.[7][8]

That's it. Those "others" are either ignorant of what religious people say about faith or lie about what the religious say about faith.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I have the same question again for Soldier.

Does scientific faith and religious faith have equal validity?

Yes or no without equivocations.

Must have gone over your head. The descriptions of faith in your link is not what you have been arguing. You have been arguing there is only one faith. As such religious faith not subject to experimental proof and scientfic faith expermntally demomstred by your rekoning have equal validty.

If I am wrong about you , then just answer the question yes or no.

Do you have any questions regarding if religious and scientific faith have equal validity?

Uh … yeah … he … asked that question. And you are repeating his question instead of answering it? What’s up with that?

Just check this out.

Also, as this thread has firmly established, science does not use ”faith“ in the religioius sense of the word.

What is "the religious sense of the word"?

 

[steve_bank]

Equivocation
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.
"I say this without equivocation"

I think Soldier is trapped. To answer the question as it should the answer is yes there is a dfiiernce between the two. Which then invalidates Soldier's argument.

Trapped like a rat, up the creek without a paddle, painting yourself into a corner. Love those old sayings.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Come again when you can;t stay so long.....

 

[pood]

Just check this out.

Also, as this thread has firmly established, science does not use ”faith“ in the religioius sense of the word.

What is "the religious sense of the word"?

We’ve been over this. From the bible: “Faith … is the evidence of things unseen.“ The evidence IS the faith. That is the religious sense of the word. It‘s certainly not the scientific sense of the word, or the rational sense of the word. However, as I argued and you ignored, religious belief is pervaded with mysticism, not with the irrational but rather with the arational. You discount the mystical experience of religion with no justification for doing so.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Equivocation
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.
"I say this without equivocation"

I think Soldier is trapped. To answer the question as it should the answer is yes there is a dfiiernce between the two. Which then invalidates Soldier's argument.

Trapped like a rat, up the creek without a paddle, painting yourself into a corner. Love those old sayings.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Come again when you can;t stay so long.....

I am really bad.

 

[steve_bank]

Equivocation
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.
"I say this without equivocation"

I think Soldier is trapped. To answer the question as it should the answer is yes there is a dfiiernce between the two. Which then invalidates Soldier's argument.

Trapped like a rat, up the creek without a paddle, painting yourself into a corner. Love those old sayings.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Come again when you can;t stay so long.....

I am really bad.

That's the first believable thing you have said on the thread.

But just more equivocation.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Just check this out.

Also, as this thread has firmly established, science does not use ”faith“ in the religioius sense of the word.

What is "the religious sense of the word"?

We’ve been over this. From the bible: “Faith … is the evidence of things unseen.“ The evidence IS the faith. That is the religious sense of the word. It‘s certainly not the scientific sense of the word, or the rational sense of the word. However, as I argued and you ignored, religious belief is pervaded with mysticism, not with the irrational but rather with the arational. You discount the mystical experience of religion with no justification for doing so.

Hmmm. If I started a thread entitled "Scientists have better logic and evidence then religious people do," then would you argue that religious faith is not what atheists say it is? Maybe I should have tried that.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I am really bad.

That's the first believable thing you have said on the thread.

But just more equivocation.

Religious people also attack the characters of those who disagree with them.

 

[steve_bank]

I am really bad.

That's the first believable thing you have said on the thread.

But just more equivocation.

Religious people also attack the characters of those who disagree with them.

You are not bad, I'd say you are inexperienced. You are contending with people who have been debating religion vs science with theists for a long time, have direct experience with theists, have read on religion, and know some science. They have gotten good at the issues.

You are just not going to win your argument. And you are not going to catch up with others on the forum anytime soon.

You have taken a beating. Review how it went and do better next time.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I am really bad.

That's the first believable thing you have said on the thread.

But just more equivocation.

Religious people also attack the characters of those who disagree with them.

You are not bad, I'd say you are inexperienced.

I've only been debating online since 1998. Do you remember AOL dialup?

You are contending with people who have been debating religion vs science with theists for a long time...

How long and how do you know?

...have direct experience with theists...

I cringe at the thought.

...have read on religion...

Watching Davey and Goliath doesn't count.

...and know some science.

Ten-year-olds know some science too.

They have gotten good at the issues.

They done good!

You are just not going to win your argument.

Actually, I set out to demonstrate that many atheists straw-man the idea of religious faith. They do and they have throughout this thread as we all know.

And you are not going to catch up with others on the forum anytime soon.

I hope not.

You have taken a beating.

I am humbled in thy sight, oh mighty one--I bow to thee as thy servant and plead for mercy.

Review how it went and do better next time.

Any pointers, Mister Master Debater? Is it safe to assume that using spellcheck is not on your list of suggestions?

 

[DBT]

Faith.

noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

2. a specific system of religious beliefs

3. Christianitytrust in God and in his actions and promises

4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

FAITH definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

FAITH definition: If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Faith.

noun
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence

2. a specific system of religious beliefs

3. Christianitytrust in God and in his actions and promises

4. a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason

FAITH definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

FAITH definition: If you have faith in someone or something, you feel confident about their ability or... | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples

www.collinsdictionary.com

Game. Set. Match.