atheism and theism both based on faith?

[Welshidiot]

Meh, backtracking a bit, but I still don't get the issue with the term belief. Fill in X for the statement below.

I X, where X is acceptance of a given postulate

It doesn't have to state the reason for acceptance of the postulate, just acceptance. Believe is the only word that works. It's my contention that people are scared of the word believe because they equate it with a faith based position and are unwilling to use terminology that they feel weakens their position.

I believe in evolution. I believe in science. I'll state it loud and proud. It tells you absolutely nothing about why I believe in those things, it's simply a statement.

If I subsequently justify my belief I would start to discuss epistemology, empiricism, falsifiability and so on and so forth. Someone else might state that they believe in evolution because the polka dot fairy monster told them to. It's an irrelevance to that statement. I know hackenslash disagrees with me on this point, and I know that's he thought it through, so it's a point we must disagree on.

Tell me this. Would it be erroneous to state that "I accept that Jesus is my lord and saviour because the Bible states it to be the case"?

I would argue this is a perfectly sound statement, and highlight that it shows that acceptance is being used simply as a synonym due to fear of attack.

I'm not quite sure I follow you,....are you saying Jesus was a dragon?

 

[lrkun]

Meh, backtracking a bit, but I still don't get the issue with the term belief. Fill in X for the statement below.

I X, where X is acceptance of a given postulate

It doesn't have to state the reason for acceptance of the postulate, just acceptance. Believe is the only word that works. It's my contention that people are scared of the word believe because they equate it with a faith based position and are unwilling to use terminology that they feel weakens their position.

I believe in evolution. I believe in science. I'll state it loud and proud. It tells you absolutely nothing about why I believe in those things, it's simply a statement.

If I subsequently justify my belief I would start to discuss epistemology, empiricism, falsifiability and so on and so forth. Someone else might state that they believe in evolution because the polka dot fairy monster told them to. It's an irrelevance to that statement. I know hackenslash disagrees with me on this point, and I know that's he thought it through, so it's a point we must disagree on.

Tell me this. Would it be erroneous to state that "I accept that Jesus is my lord and saviour because the Bible states it to be the case"?

I would argue this is a perfectly sound statement, and highlight that it shows that acceptance is being used simply as a synonym due to fear of attack.

I'm not quite sure I follow you,....are you saying Jesus was a dragon?

No, because Squawk talked about belief and why it's okay to use the word belief.

 

[Squawk]

I'm not quite sure I follow you,....are you saying Jesus was a dragon?

That's about as plausible as rising from the dead

Though getting things back on track, I figure dragons refers to the commonly accepted definition of dragons in the sense of legend. A dragon like a komodo is named as a dragon, but is not taxonomically a dragon.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm out. My pedantry detector has blown up and I need to go fix it.

 

[Squawk]

I'm out. My pedantry detector has blown up and I need to go fix it.

Lol, tis my bugbear.

 

[lrkun]

When does faith come in? I ask because I always thought the I believe and faith are synonymous. Correct me here.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Irkun, I have to agree with australopithecus here. The wiki article on Komodo Dragons classifies them as lizards, not dragons. Merriam-Webster does not list a non-archaic definition that would allow for extant animals, unless you happen to be describing the behavior of a person. The use of the word dragon that you are suggesting is established in some way simply isn't. australopithecus' Ladybird example is perfect. Those little bugs are not classified as birds. There is no definition of bird that would describe that little bug. The mere presence of the word "bird" in the name does not make that bug a bird, just as the mere presence of the word "dragon" in the name of the Komodo Dragon does not make that lizard a dragon. While I'm all for being specific, your position isn't supported. Rather than criticize others for not being specific when their meaning was obvious, perhaps you should reevaluate what you should think about when somebody says the word "dragon".

 

[lrkun]

Irkun, I have to agree with australopithecus here. The wiki article on Komodo Dragons classifies them as lizards, not dragons. Merriam-Webster does not list a non-archaic definition that would allow for extant animals, unless you happen to be describing the behavior of a person. The use of the word dragon that you suggesting is established in some way simply isn't. australopithecus' Ladybird example is perfect. Those little bugs are not classified as birds. There is no definition of bird that would describe that little bug. The mere presence of the word "bird" in the name does not make that bug a bird, just as the mere presence of the word "dragon" in the name of the Komodo Dragon does not make that lizard a dragon. While I'm all for being specific, your position isn't supported. Rather than criticize others for not being specific when their meaning was obvious, perhaps you should reevaluate what you should think about when somebody says the word "dragon".

I disagree. I'll leave it at that.

 

[kenandkids]

When does faith come in? I ask because I always thought the I believe and faith are synonymous. Correct me here.

I believe that I will get heat stroke when subjected to temperatures in excess of 105 F. I do not need to go out and test the belief, because prior experience has taught me, many times, that this is likely. Faith would be if I had never had heat stroke, and never been subjected to temperatures of that magnitude. There is a difference between the two concepts.

 

[kenandkids]

Though getting things back on track, I figure dragons refers to the commonly accepted definition of dragons in the sense of legend.

Lol. you mean back off track. Faith was the original discussion.

 

[Magorian Aximand]

In essence, the difference is the presence of evidence. At least with the applicable definition of faith. Belief can be viewed as simply the acceptance that a proposition is true. Faith is unjustified belief.

 

[Squawk]

When does faith come in? I ask because I always thought the I believe and faith are synonymous. Correct me here.

I'd suggest that faith is a subset of belief, specifically, belief for which the evidence in support of the claim is insufficient to claim justification for the belief.

Where you draw the line on evidence, however, is something of an individual choice.

 

[lrkun]

When does faith come in? I ask because I always thought the I believe and faith are synonymous. Correct me here.

I believe that I will get heat stroke when subjected to temperatures in excess of 105 F. I do not need to go out and test the belief, because prior experience has taught me, many times, that this is likely. Faith would be if I had never had heat stroke, and never been subjected to temperatures of that magnitude. There is a difference between the two concepts.

In essence, the difference is the presence of evidence. At least with the applicable definition of faith. Belief can be viewed as simply the acceptance that a proposition is true. Faith is unjustified belief.

When does faith come in? I ask because I always thought the I believe and faith are synonymous. Correct me here.

I'd suggest that faith is a subset of belief, specifically, belief for which the evidence in support of the claim is insufficient to claim justification for the belief.

Where you draw the line on evidence, however, is something of an individual choice.

Belief = accept.

Faith = unsubstantiated, but accepted/believed to be true?

Anyway, what standard should we consider when dealing with evidence?

Thanks for the replies. It's very helpful.

 

[Squawk]

The standard considered is subjective. Some people consider the bible to be sufficient evidence for belief. Others won't consider the most robust science to be sufficient.

Only you can determine what you will accept as sufficient to merit belief, or possibly more importantly, at what point that belief becomes faith.

One mans faith is anothers justified belief. I'd offer up a test. If you consider a given belief to be justified (ie, not faith), consider what else you would accept given the same level of evidential requirement.

Ie, if you consider the bible to be sufficient for belief, what about the Koran, or Harry Potter?

 

[Magorian Aximand]

Squawk's method is a good one to take note of. Following the logic a tad further, if the reasoning that supports a given proposition can be followed to support just as strongly (or weakly) a mutually exclusive proposition, we cannot consider either to be properly justified.


What constitutes evidence also varies depending on the situation. I'm sure you've heard the phrase that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For example, if I tell you that my parents got a new dog, you're likely to believe me. It isn't a very extraordinary claim. People have parents, people own dogs, and it's reasonable to think that I'm telling the truth. My testimony is evidence enough for you to believe that my parents did, in fact, get a new dog. If, however, I tell you that there is a fire breathing dragon in my garage, you're probably going to want a little more than my word. To purport that a fantastically dangerous creature of myth is residing with my cars is a rather extraordinary claim, and testimony is no longer extraordinary enough evidence to be convincing. Frankly, testimony never has been and never will be extraordinary enough evidence for the miraculous or the divine.

 

[borrofburi]

I'm out. My pedantry detector has blown up and I need to go fix it.

I was wondering when Don Quipithecus was going stop fighting the windmill...

 

[australopithecus]

When the windmill is in danger of giving me an aneurysm.

 

[MindHack]

I've reread the title of the topic so many times now, I'm confused. Maybe my Dutch mindset has something to do with it, or my insufficient reading comprehension. Not sure, but here's my confusion:

atheism and theism both based on faith?

I think the topic starter used the word "faith" with a religious connotation attached to it. As if the same mechanism is at work to accept the theist position or the atheist position. This is rather strange to me, as atheism isn't a position really, only the rejection/absence of someone else's position.

As I understand it now, people use the word faith to assert stuff as true. In my language the word that would best describe that is "trust" or "confidence". Without good reason to trust something is true it starts to become "believing it is true". Someone's faith (in English) is someone's belief (in Dutch), While faith (in Dutch) is trust/confidence (in English)

In other words, faith translated is "confidence" or "trust", while "blind" (religious) faith is just "belief". If I read the title and use my Dutch mindset I think I see the question being postulated "is trust/confidence the basis for believing/not-believing in god(s)"

Then I think "Well yeah, but now what?"

I don't get the title.

One more thing related to the above: is a "leap of faith" not actually better described as a "leap of confidence", as a gap of unsupported trust in a proposition, hence faith. Faith = leap of confidence?

I hope this makes a bit sense. Like I said, I reread the title too many times.

 

[televator]

I've reread the title of the topic so many times now, I'm confused. Maybe my Dutch mindset has something to do with it, or my insufficient reading comprehension. Not sure, but here's my confusion:

atheism and theism both based on faith?

I think the topic starter used the word "faith" with a religious connotation attached to it. As if the same mechanism is at work to accept the theist position or the atheist position. This is rather strange to me, as atheism isn't a position really, only the rejection/absence of someone else's position.

As I understand it now, people use the word faith to assert stuff as true. In my language the word that would best describe that is "trust" or "confidence". Without good reason to trust something is true it starts to become "believing it is true". Someone's faith (in English) is someone's belief (in Dutch), While faith (in Dutch) is trust/confidence (in English)

In other words, faith translated is "confidence" or "trust", while "blind" (religious) faith is just "belief". If I read the title and use my Dutch mindset I think I see the question being postulated "is trust/confidence the basis for believing/not-believing in god(s)"

Then I think "Well yeah, but now what?"

I don't get the title.

One more thing related to the above: is a "leap of faith" not actually better described as a "leap of confidence", as a gap of unsupported trust in a proposition, hence faith. Faith = leap of confidence?

I hope this makes a bit sense. Like I said, I reread the title too many times.

Definition of FAITH
1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty 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; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>


Faith, is the belief in something for which there is no proof of. In a theistic context, it is the belief in a god for which there is no proof of. So it is positive belief in the absence of proof. It is independent from proof.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god based on lack of evidence or proof for god. It is a position that does depend on proof/evidence.

I do find in many thesauri and dictionaries that faith is interchangeable with trust. If that truly is the case then I think a new word is required for having an inclination toward a belief or outcome based on track record, repeated observation, or evidence.

 

[Laurens]

Believing something that is in line with the evidence is not faith, ergo atheism is not faith.