Pray away your diabetes- Ask me how

[Xiahou]

Did you read our exchange? I'm assuming you did.

I said the issue was blind faith, not religion. One can have religion and not act on it blindly, or ignore good common sense and evidence, while also still believing in something.

Blind faith (to me, that's redundant) leads to ignoring common sense. That's what I was "on about". CR completely ignored what I said and said this was another "petulant" attack on Christianity, which it... was... not.

That's poor debating, in my opinion.

Actually, you were arguing that all faith is blind. Religion requires faith. Therefore? You do the math.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Actually, you were arguing that all faith is blind. Religion requires faith. Therefore? You do the math.

No, I made a distinction between belief, which we all have, (a belief in something or a belief that there's nothing, or a belief that it doesn't matter) and certainty that you know something you cannot know, which is faith.

Knowing versus opinion; especially in the case where by definition you don't really know; that's faith versus belief. I've repeatedly, repeatedly stated there's a difference and explained it.

I can respond all day, but unless you respond to what I actually have been arguing, I'm defending myself against the equivalent of a strawman.

[Xiahou]

I'm sorry. Can you succinctly explain what you see as the difference between faith and belief? To most people, including Merriam-Webster, they're synonymous.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And you don't dispute that, so why are we arguing?

It's like saying the sun is yellow or that murder is bad. You're just raging at some evil you've set up. Sure, the target of your scorn is bad, but no one is defending it. You could argue like that all you want without any of us around.

I did no such thing. I defended religion as having NOTHING to do with what idiots believe God will miraculously do for them if they ignore good common sense.

Let's take a look;

Religion involves a set of beliefs, usually involving those not supported by evidence and also involving the supernatural (if there is such a thing), but that's not always the case. Faith is unwavering belief in spite of evidence, or with a lack of evidence, in something.

So you're essentially saying that faith is for idiots, and you have to have faith to be religious.

CR, I have no issue with you, but you're a fantastically poor debater.

Says the guy who claimed alcohol prohibition would help drunk driving, didn't defend that position except by talking about hard drug prohibition, then had a fainting spell when I called prohibition stupid and left the argument completely.

If you won't really read my arguments or treat them seriously, and then get upset at things I didn't say or mean, then I'd ask you kindly not to respond to me, since you're not really responding to me.

How convenient to claim that whatever doesn't agree with your position is ignoring your arguments.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Let's say that I have faith in my weatherman. He says there is a 40% chance of rain tomorrow, so I take an umbrella. I'm taking it on faith that he is correct about the weather.

Now let's say Bob has faith in his weatherman. The weatherman says there is a 40% chance of rain tomorrow, but since bob doesn't understand percentages he doesn't take an umbrella and gets rained on.

The problem was idiocy and not faith.


Faith is not blind faith, and you are equating the two merely to fit your own world view. What are the dangers of close mindedness I wonder?

Brevity is a quality in writing btw.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm sorry. Can you succinctly explain what you see as the difference between faith and belief? To most people, including Merriam-Webster, they're synonymous.

I'll repeat myself:

No, I made a distinction between belief, which we all have, (a belief in something or a belief that there's nothing, or a belief that it doesn't matter) and certainty that you know something you cannot know, which is faith.

And a dictionary or thesaurus puts nearly synonymous words together as synonyms, but sometimes those words do not mean precisely the same thing. Belief and opinion are more synonymous than opinion and faith. But if we are saying that belief and faith are synonymous, and opinion and belief are synonymous, then we are saying that opinion and faith are synonymous, and I contend that they are not. I've repeatedly stated what the difference between a religious opinion is, and what believing that you know something for a fact which cannot be known is.

Faith versus belief. And since admittedly, these aren't traditionally made distinct concepts, I've had to repeat why I think they are over and over again, because unfortunately the English language only gives me so many words to work with when talking about the difference between opinion and certainty.





Crazed Rabbit-



You even underlined the word "unwavering" so I know you saw the difference I was making, but then proceeded to totally ignore it.

I am not sure what the issue is, but it seems we cannot communicate effectively. I attempted to explain my position and the nuance of my argument and you're just steamrolling over it and laughing at me. If you don't want to listen to me with an open mind I am not sure why I should respond.






Sasaki-

This gets into a semantic argument where we can use the word "faith" in all its many different usages and have it by context mean belief and not certainty. Another problem with the language is that you can give me examples of where faith in context means regular old opinion or belief, and I can give you examples of where it means something quite different; a kind of certainty wherein we start to ignore common sense and logic and reason and reject anything which might go against it.

There IS a clear distinction and unfortunately the language we've agreed upon to debate the issue has lots of holes in it, and that is why I keep defining my terms that I am using in proper context, which creates a distinct argument that some gloss over.

Brevity is a quality... is that your opinion or is it an unwavering belief? Are there ever examples where a quantity of words may be necessary? Are there exceptions to the rule? Do you see the difference between opinion, belief, and unwavering belief in spite of common sense, evidence, and so forth?

If you can't, then we are having two different discussions, and we are wasting our energy.

[Xiahou]

First, your definition of belief appears to be self-referencing. Further, your own definitions significant overlap. You can believe in something without any evidence for it and you can have faith in something without any evidence for it- this is using your definition.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You even underlined the word "unwavering" so I know you saw the difference I was making, but then proceeded to totally ignore it.

Almost every religious person has an unwavering faith in God. They don't go about wavering over whether he exists.

Again;

and certainty that you know something you cannot know, which is faith.

That's religion for you. Faith in that which cannot be proven. So, yea, another petulant attack on any Christian who's actually believes.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Faith versus belief. And since admittedly, these aren't traditionally made distinct concepts, I've had to repeat why I think they are over and over again, because unfortunately the English language only gives me so many words to work with when talking about the difference between opinion and certainty.

Sasaki-

This gets into a semantic argument where we can use the word "faith" in all its many different usages and have it by context mean belief and not certainty. Another problem with the language is that you can give me examples of where faith in context means regular old opinion or belief, and I can give you examples of where it means something quite different; a kind of certainty wherein we start to ignore common sense and logic and reason and reject anything which might go against it.

There IS a clear distinction and unfortunately the language we've agreed upon to debate the issue has lots of holes in it, and that is why I keep defining my terms that I am using in proper context, which creates a distinct argument that some gloss over.

Brevity is a quality... is that your opinion or is it an unwavering belief? Are there ever examples where a quantity of words may be necessary? Are there exceptions to the rule? Do you see the difference between opinion, belief, and unwavering belief in spite of common sense, evidence, and so forth?

If you can't, then we are having two different discussions, and we are wasting our energy.

Well, brevity in my opinion means "quite long, actually". I know it's traditionally synonymous with "conciseness" but unfortunately the English language only gives me so many words to work with. By the way, according to my definitions, following someone's name with a hyphen is a grave insult. I demand an apology. I would open my own thread on the subject but it would doubtless be overrun by poor debaters who do not agree with my definitions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It doesn't matter to me what the Bible says, it's not about religion, the question isn't about whether it's better to believe in something or not... religion or no religion should not, in either case, cause stupidity within people or irrationality in judgment. FAITH is the issue, not religion. The Bible could teach one plus one equals five and it still wouldn't cause people to basically kill their children because they believe that God will heal them, even though he clearly will not. That requires faith.

The difference being, I can believe in God (or disbelieve in God), but if I have faith that he will do something (or that I can do something); some wacky idea that I came up with by myself, that is taking a leap of faith. Religion involves a set of beliefs, usually involving those not supported by evidence and also involving the supernatural (if there is such a thing), but that's not always the case. Faith is unwavering belief in spite of evidence, or with a lack of evidence, in something. Whatever that thing is; be it religious theory or scientific theory or political theory, or any other kind of theory; and the belief is unquestioning. Unquestioning belief, ("blind faith") is dangerous and this is why. Because if you never question your beliefs then you might as well disconnect your brain because you've rendered it useless.

Blind faith also appears to be redundant, because what is faith unless it is blind to facts and deaf to evidence? Faith requires no evidence and it also requires one to sometimes ignore evidence. Hence the entire Faith versus Reason debate I had earlier with Rhyfelwyr, where I exhaustively demonstrated using example and logic and by definition, how dangerous faith is and how different it is from belief and from religion. Faith does not need to be religious, and it doesn't just mean belief. It means unwavering belief, stubborn belief, irrational belief, extreme belief. That's why we have to define certain things as faith, because we ALL have opinions and beliefs of some kind, and what differentiates rational opinions which can be altered or reasoned with and stubborn opinions which can never be altered, is faith, which opposes reason.

Acting on faith is almost by definition acting without reason or against reason. And what happens is people get hurt or they die when they ignore their own common sense. Acting on faith is dangerous. That's even intuitively obvious, because what is faith without risking being wrong? If we risk nothing by taking a leap of faith, then why is it so courageous (or stupid)?

You appear to be setting up a thesis-antithesis using "faith" and "reason" as the key terms. This is a false dichotomy, as faith is neither a good synonym for unreasoning or irrational (even when you modify the term as "unwavering"), nor does faith -- even a profoundly stubborn faith -- preclude reason (A point better argued by Aquinas than by me).

[Papewaio]

Evolution, putting the Mother in Mother Nature.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did you read our exchange? I'm assuming you did.

I said the issue was blind faith, not religion. One can have religion and not act on it blindly, or ignore good common sense and evidence, while also still believing in something.

Blind faith (to me, that's redundant) leads to ignoring common sense. That's what I was "on about". CR completely ignored what I said and said this was another "petulant" attack on Christianity, which it... was... not.

That's poor debating, in my opinion.

Not this again. As I recall, last time you spent about four pages attacking Rhy, then you opened up the debate and when I demonstrated your definitions were faulty and your premis flawed you had a hissy fit and the thread got locked.

It wasn't impressive then, and it isn't now. You are entitled to your worldview, but your current arguements in support of it don't stand up.

[Adrian II]

Actually, you were arguing that all faith is blind. Religion requires faith. Therefore? You do the math.

He said that religion may require faith, but not necessarily a leap of faith, in other words a belief that runs counter to established fact or common experience. It's perfectly clear to me.

The pizzzameister wants to debate you guys, not Mssrs Merriam and Webster. He is asking you to reach and try to understand him, in the same way that we atheists on this forum are expected to reach and try to understand religious members when they speak of their beliefs, strange as they may seem to us. Without the effort there is no debate, no exchange, just useless nitpicking.

[Gregoshi]

...just useless nitpicking.

Not useless - the Backroom is infested with nits.

[Husar]

Useless nitpicking is the high art of continuing an already "lost" debate.

[Beskar]

Santa will bring you toys on Christmas if you are good. No worries.

[Gregoshi]

Santa will bring you toys on Christmas if you are good. No worries.

Unless you are holed up in the Alamo.

Scratch one nit. I repeat, scratch one nit. I'm heading home. Over.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

He said that religion may require faith, but not necessarily a leap of faith, in other words a belief that runs counter to established fact or common experience. It's perfectly clear to me.

The pizzzameister wants to debate you guys, not Mssrs Merriam and Webster. He is asking you to reach and try to understand him, in the same way that we atheists on this forum are expected to reach and try to understand religious members when they speak of their beliefs, strange as they may seem to us. Without the effort there is no debate, no exchange, just useless nitpicking.

No he doesn't. Not unless you have low standards for debate. This thread isn't about religious faith, it isn't about religion, it isn't about faith as a "confidant belief". The way it is stated by pizza, he just wants to discuss blind, idiotic faith as in the original article. No one disagreed with him that it was bad but he went on a long rant about it in response to someone pointing out that these people were acting against the bible. So the thread reads to me like either pizza believes that serious discussion is required about something Rhyf's minister makes jokes about, or that he is pushing guilt by association. Neither are worthy of debate.

Now, I'd be interested in discussing the psychology behind such blind belief but I don't know anything about it and there isn't anything about it in the thread.

[Beskar]

What do you want in particular, Sasaki? I could probably sent you a couple of journal references, as linking to them probably against copyright and licensing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

All you Christians are stupid. A diabetes kid was killed because of your silly beliefs in faith healing.


By contrast, my urban and educated children will get healed by accupuncture, homeopatic medicines, and manual-chakral therapy.

[rasoforos]

All you Christians are stupid. A diabetes kid was killed because of your silly beliefs in faith healing.


By contrast, my urban and educated children will get healed by accupuncture, homeopatic medicines, and manual-chakral therapy.

fixed...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did I mention that if I concentrate really hard I can make lightning shoot out my fingers, and make palnts grow?

More seriously, I was subject to a Faith Healer as a child, while he did not make anyone exactly levitate it was weird and he certainly did something to those involved. That was not prayer though, and it wasn't for anything life threatening.

[Cronos Impera]

There's an orthodox morale.
God gives you stuff but he doesn't put it in your basket. You have to fill the basket yourself.

If you just pray and do nothing than you get nothing. That is the morale of the story.
No Orthodox saint ever got beatified for faith and prayer alone. You have to work to receive your payment.

Those pseudo-Christians are like humanist atheists. They are waiting for a knight in white to free them and that is just the wrong approach. Jesus, Moses, David, Solomon and the apostles worked to get their work done. They didn't pray and hope the world changes. God worked to build this world and so must man.

Faith is fundamental to every ideology from liberalism to totalitarianism and from philosophy to religion. Anyone needs faith, without it you'll end up eating from anyone. Without faith you'll bend like a spineless schrimp and bellyfeel Ingsoc.

What we see here is a pathetic passive approach. Even Orthodox priests or patriarchs go to the doctor when they are ill because they know the priest's role and that role has nothing to do with physical healing, but spiritual healing. In the past the only ones who could heal ware prophets, Jesus or saints but not priests.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Faith healing amuses me because Luke (of Gospel authorship and sainthood fame) was a physician...