[smacintush]

We have had a myriad of religious threads here and they always turn out the same. I don't really want to get into specific religions or anything here since that's been done to death.

Now, I haven't made a secret about how I feel about certain religions but I do believe that having faith in something is not only a very good and useful thing in life, but a very unavoidable and human thing. We all have faith in something eventually.

However there are some here that laugh at and decry faith in general. So, set God, Allah, Brahman and the Flying Spaghetti Monster aside for a while: What exactly is wrong with faith itself?

[Kevin]

It makes people feel insecure because in their mind faith = religion.

Even though those that claim that God doesn't exist is also using faith to believe such a thing.

 

Even though they will argue with you till their blue in the face that they don't have faith in anything because of such insecurity about faith. Watch, it will happen before this thread is over.

[Goldfinger]

Funny sig, Kevin.

on topic: I'm not touching this topic

[kc311v2]

How can one be insecure when they have faith in themselves?

[nonhuman]

There's nothing wrong with faith. It's what you do with it that can cause problems.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Funny sig, Kevin.

on topic: I'm not touching this topic

CHICKENSH*T!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

There's nothing wrong with faith. It's what you do with it that can cause problems.

Can't that be said of nearly anything?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by kc311v2 

How can one be insecure when they have faith in themselves?

Some people have a hard time even admitting they practice any sort of faith. That all their beliefs and decisions are based on logical facts.

They deny faith because faith makes them feel insecure. Of course they would never admit that.... but hey.

[BRussell]

Maybe you should define what you mean by faith, smac. If by faith you mean belief in something that you don't know to be true, I don't get it. You can accept well-established facts as true (e.g., Springfield is the capital of Illinois). You can believe that some things are probably true or false but accept varying levels of uncertainty about them (e.g., Jesus existed). You can accept that you don't have any idea about other things (e.g., I don't know where bin Laden is or whether he is alive). And you can have values that guide you (e.g., I believe we should try to reduce economic inequality). But why faith? You could ask what's wrong with it, but why not ask why we should have it at all?

[Chuckit]

I do think it's necessary first to define faith, since it's become clear from various threads that Kevin and I have completely opposite ideas of what it means (e.g., what Kevin calls faith, I would call lack of faith).

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Maybe you should define what you mean by faith, smac. If by faith you mean belief in something that you don't know to be true, I don't get it.

That's close enough.

…why faith? You could ask what's wrong with it, but why not ask why we should have it at all?

Answer it however you like!

I can give you at least one answer to why have faith, but I don't think you will like it.

When you truly have faith in something. Not when you WISH something to be true, or you SAY that you believe something to be true but when you have real faith in something you lose anxiety about it. ( I use the term "anxiety" loosely, don't read too much into it)

Think of this analogy. (I've used it here before)

You are standing on the edge of a cliff and a large chunk of rock breaks loose beneath your feet and you fall with the rock. (think Wile E. Coyote)

You can either grab onto the rock for dear life for security.

Or you can simply let go and fall freely and enjoy the ride down.

Now, in the end you will die either way, but that rock won't do a thing for you. It's only making you anxious.

Clinging to that rock is analogous to how people tend to live. It's how people who need all the FACTS are living. They need to KNOW and to control because they are fearful of just letting go. (yes, I'm generalizing but I am just trying to make a point)

Don't try to twist this I am not saying that we should be deliberately ignorant. It's not WHAT you are doing to run your life that I am talking about it's simply how you feel about it.

[Rumor]

I thought I was the only one that believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!


On a serious note though, I've said this before:

"Humans require faith, be it in a higher power or within themselves."

[ironknee]

faith is the only thing true about religion.

nothing wrong with faith as long as you don't try to stuff it down other people's throat as real.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I do think it's necessary first to define faith, since it's become clear from various threads that Kevin and I have completely opposite ideas of what it means (e.g., what Kevin calls faith, I would call lack of faith).

Was I right or was I right.

Call it what you want Chuckit. Having a belief that you cannot prove requires faith.

NOT believing in something is STILL a belief.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I can give you at least one answer to why have faith, but I don't think you will like it.

When you truly have faith in something. Not when you WISH something to be true, or you SAY that you believe something to be true but when you have real faith in something you lose anxiety about it. ( I use the term "anxiety" loosely, don't read too much into it)

Think of this analogy. (I've used it here before)

You are standing on the edge of a cliff and a large chunk of rock breaks loose beneath your feet and you fall with the rock. (think Wile E. Coyote)

You can either grab onto the rock for dear life for security.

Or you can simply let go and fall freely and enjoy the ride down.

Now, in the end you will die either way, but that rock won't do a thing for you. It's only making you anxious.

Clinging to that rock is analogous to how people tend to live. It's how people who need all the FACTS are living. They need to KNOW and to control because they are fearful of just letting go. (yes, I'm generalizing but I am just trying to make a point)

Don't try to twist this I am not saying that we should be deliberately ignorant. It's not WHAT you are doing to run your life that I am talking about it's simply how you feel about it.

That's an interesting analogy because in it you associate faith with giving up, with letting go of the rock and dying. I think many people would see faith as like clinging to that rock with the (probably false) belief that you will get out or someone will find you.

But don't get me wrong, I can definitely see the value of faith. It could be motivating to people, it could provide comfort. It may be the only thing standing between many people and depression. Placebo effects do work, after all.

But isn't there a problem if people replace empirically and rationally-derived knowledge with faith-based belief? For example, if you have faith that God will cure your sick child, and so you refuse medical treatment that could save your child?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

NOT believing in something is STILL a belief.

Not really. Does someone who's never even heard of a Christian, let alone the Christian conception of God, have a belief one way or the other about that God? No.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Not really. Does someone who's never even heard of a Christian, let alone the Christian conception of God, have a belief one way or the other about that God? No.

You are exactly correct.

These people would have no faith because they hold no beliefs either way.

For example if someone where to tell me they were Agnostic, and had no faith I would believe them and wouldn't argue with them.

Agnostics usually hold no belief for or against. They have no belief.

As soon as you have a belief however, and that belief isn't backed by facts, Faith does step in.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You are exactly correct.

These people would have no faith because they hold no beliefs either way.

For example if someone where to tell me they were Agnostic, and had no faith I would believe them and wouldn't argue with them.

Agnostics usually hold no belief for or against. They have no belief.

As soon as you have a belief however, and that belief isn't backed by facts, Faith does step in.

Just to be clear, your reply should read "these people would have no Christian faith". It is quite possible they have some other sort of religious faith (in a higher power) or some faith in the qualities of humanity as a whole or faith in themselves as individuals. Using Christianity as a reference point in discussing the definition of faith only serves to limit that discussion. There are plenty of ways to have/express faith without it involving Christianity.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Just to be clear, your reply should read "these people would have no Christian faith". It is quite possible they have some other sort of religious faith (in a higher power) or some faith in the qualities of humanity as a whole or faith in themselves as individuals. Using Christianity as a reference point in discussing the definition of faith only serves to limit that discussion. There are plenty of ways to have/express faith without it involving Christianity.

Of course, I would hope WITHIN CONTEXT one would know what I was referring to without having to spell it out. Not that I was singling out Christianity. I wasn't. I am speaking about just a belief in a higher power.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Of course, I would hope WITHIN CONTEXT one would know what I was referring to without having to spell it out. Not that I was singling out Christianity. I wasn't. I am speaking about just a belief in a higher power.

Read my sig and learn a lesson.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Was I right or was I right.

Were you right or were you right about what? I have not ever tried to claim that I have no faith in anything, which is the only prediction I recall you making.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Call it what you want Chuckit. Having a belief that you cannot prove requires faith.

NOT believing in something is STILL a belief.

As I said, you clearly have different definitions of these things than I do, since your second claim seems self-contradictory and the idea of "proof" makes no sense in this context.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Read my sig and learn a lesson.

But I wasn't singling out Christians.

[Kevin]

I was right about this below.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As I said, you clearly have different definitions of these things than I do, since the words "faith" and "proof" make no sense in this context to me.

Regardless if it "makes no sense to you" you having a belief that isn't based on fact requires faith non-the-less.

You believing a higher power doesn't exist is still a belief. You NOT believing in a higher power is still a belief. No matter how you spin it.

Sleep with my wife, I'll try to kill you.

Don't sleep with my wife or I'll try to kill you.

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...ic-experiment/

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You are exactly correct.

These people would have no faith because they hold no beliefs either way.

For example if someone where to tell me they were Agnostic, and had no faith I would believe them and wouldn't argue with them.

Agnostics usually hold no belief for or against. They have no belief.

As soon as you have a belief however, and that belief isn't backed by facts, Faith does step in.

Agreed. I do also happen to think it's possible to be atheist and still hold no belief about God(s) one way or the other (to me, agnostic implies that you're actively questioning and trying to figure out if there is or isn't a God or gods, an atheist without belief in the matter would be someone who neither affirms nor denies God(s) but also doesn't search for the answer), but at that point it's really just an issue of definitions.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Regardless if it "makes no sense to you" you having a belief (choosing to NOT believe in something is STILL a belief and choice) that isn't based on fact requires faith non-the-less.

Disbelieving something based on lack of evidential support is not the same thing as "having a belief that isn't based on fact." Otherwise, we could not disbelieve anything at all.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Disbelieving something based on lack of evidential support is not the same thing as "having a belief that isn't based on fact." Otherwise, we could not disbelieve anything at all.

There is no evidence supporting it correct. But there is also no evidence disproving it.

Since that is the case, forming ANY belief for or against requires faith.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Agreed. I do also happen to think it's possible to be atheist and still hold no belief about God(s) one way or the other (to me, agnostic implies that you're actively questioning and trying to figure out if there is or isn't a God or gods, an atheist without belief in the matter would be someone who neither affirms nor denies God(s) but also doesn't search for the answer), but at that point it's really just an issue of definitions.

I've never seen a "search" being required to be agnostics. Most agnostics I know don't share a belief either way because they claim nothing either way has proven to them what was going on. So they hold no solid beliefs. I knew one that believed that him not making a choice either way was a "safe" bet. Till I explained to him that not making a choice was still a choice.

Being an Atheist means you BELIEVE that there are no higher powers out there. Or no God. You've made up your mind.

If you "have no belief either way" you would still be agnostic regardless of "search"

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

There is no evidence supporting it correct. But there is also no evidence disproving it.

Since that is the case, forming ANY belief for or against requires faith.

If that is the case, any belief, lack of belief or reservation of opinion requires faith.

You cannot prove a negative. You also cannot disprove an argument that has not been made. In both these cases, there is no reason to believe in the positive. To believe in the positive is faith; not to believe in it is not. This is how logic works. If you think logic is faith, that's fine, but that isn't how I use the word.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If that is the case, any belief, lack of belief or reservation of opinion requires faith.

Anything that you have an belief about that isn't centered in FACT requires faith.

To believe in the positive is faith; not to believe in it is not.

Thats simply not how it works. You are giving words new "meanings" that simply doesn't exist.

Again, any belief that isn't rooted in fact is based in faith. Doesn't matter if that belief is a disbelief in something or not. Me choosing not to believe in Santa Claus is still a belief.

Now you can say you choose not to believe that, and that is ok. But that doesn't make it not true.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I've never seen a "search" being required to be agnostics. Most agnostics I know don't share a belief either way because they claim nothing either way has proven to them what was going on. So they hold no solid beliefs. I knew one that believed that him not making a choice either way was a "safe" bet. Till I explained to him that not making a choice was still a choice.

Being an Atheist means you BELIEVE that there are no higher powers out there. Or no God. You've made up your mind.

If you "have no belief either way" you would still be agnostic regardless of "search"

That's just the way I've always defined the terms (and I know that there are other, atheists generally, who agree). But it's not important. I don't really care how people choose to label my beliefs (or lack thereof).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Anything that you have an belief about that isn't centered in FACT requires faith.

And if your belief is centered around the presence or absence of compelling evidence for an idea (i.e. facts), it is not faith.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Again, any belief that isn't rooted in fact is based in faith. Doesn't matter if that belief is a disbelief in something.

"Disbelief is belief! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!" That's how this sounds to me.

[PB2K]

people should show more respect to others, even more if they don't understand them.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And if your belief is centered around the presence or absence of compelling evidence for an idea (i.e. facts), it is not faith.

Lack of proof of something isn't proof. Therefore requires faith.

"Disbelief is belief! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!" That's how this sounds to me.

You are spinning again.

I can hold a belief that Santa Claus does not exist can't I? Yes.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Lack of proof of something isn't proof. Therefore requires faith.

YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE.

Did you read it that time?

You cannot prove a negative. You can only show that there is no compelling evidence for the positive claim. That's what's known as burden of proof. If the side on which the burden of proof lies cannot sufficiently establish its case, it is considered disproven. This is logic.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If that is the case, any belief, lack of belief or reservation of opinion requires faith.

You cannot prove a negative. You also cannot disprove an argument that has not been made. In both these cases, there is no reason to believe in the positive. To believe in the positive is faith; not to believe in it is not. This is how logic works. If you think logic is faith, that's fine, but that isn't how I use the word.

To not believe in a positive, in the absence of contradictory evidence, is an act of faith. As long as that positive assertion has been made and no proof has yet been found either way, whatever position you take on it is one of faith. To reserve judgement until evidence has been found to one conclusion or the other is still and act of faith: faith that said evidence exists at all, faith that there is even a possibility in the assertion being true, faith that the lack of evidence so far is not because there simply isn't any.

As you said, you can't prove a negative. Therefore in the absence of proof any position you hold is taken on faith, even if your position is to just wait for contradictory evidence.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE.

Did you read it that time?

You cannot prove a negative. You can only show that there is no compelling evidence for the positive claim. That's what's known as burden of proof. If the side on which the burden of proof lies cannot sufficiently establish its case, it is considered disproven. This is logic.

Which is why if you say that something is false, it is an act of faith. Faith that some heretofore undiscovered evidence for the positive is not going to turn up. All you're saying when you put forth a negative claim is, 'we believe, due to a lack of compelling evidence thus far discovered, that this is likely to be false'. The operative word being 'believe'.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Which is why if you say that something is false, it is an act of faith. Faith that some heretofore undiscovered evidence for the positive is not going to turn up. All you're saying when you put forth a negative claim is, 'we believe, due to a lack of compelling evidence thus far discovered, that this is likely to be false'. The operative word being 'believe'.

So here we have it: It is impossible to lack belief in something for rational reasons. As I said, you are clearly speaking a different language. I sincerely doubt the people smacintush is talking about mean that there's something wrong with disbelieving an idea.

[BRussell]

Chuckit you are absolutely correct and it's pretty clear they're just engaging in word play in order to argue "you have faith too!"

[brokenjago]

Originally Posted by smacintush

What exactly is wrong with faith itself?

Nothing.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So here we have it: It is impossible to lack belief in something for rational reasons. As I said, you are clearly speaking a different language. I sincerely doubt the people smacintush is talking about mean that there's something wrong with disbelieving an idea.

Uh, that's not what I said at all. I just dispute that it's rational to claim as truth something that can't be proven. You can claim it as highly likely, you can claim it as probable, you can claim it as your strongly held belief. But to claim it as truth is to be intellectually dishonest, because, as you yourself said, it cannot be proven.

Lacking belief can be an entirely rational thing. It is rational to, in the absence of evidence of something, lack belief in the existence of that thing. But to claim for a fact that said thing does not and cannot exist at all is irrational, it is making—entirely on faith—the assumption that no evidence for it will ever be discovered. Something that there is no way you can ever possibly know for sure.

Certainty of the lack of existence of something is an expediency that is used when presenting science to those that lack proper understanding of scientific principles. Telling people that telekinesis does not exist gets across the right message. Telling them the truth, which is that we cannot find evidence for telekinesis, nor can we conceive of a way in which it would be physically possible, merely confuses the matter.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Uh, that's not what I said at all. I just dispute that it's rational to claim as truth something that can't be proven. You can claim it as highly likely, you can claim it as probable, you can claim it as your strongly held belief. But to claim it as truth is to be intellectually dishonest, because, as you yourself said, it cannot be proven.

Lacking belief can be an entirely rational thing. It is rational to, in the absence of evidence of something, lack belief in the existence of that thing. But to claim for a fact that said thing does not and cannot exist at all is irrational, it is making—entirely on faith—the assumption that no evidence for it will ever be discovered. Something that there is no way you can ever possibly know for sure.

Certainty of the lack of existence of something is an expediency that is used when presenting science to those that lack proper understanding of scientific principles. Telling people that telekinesis does not exist gets across the right message. Telling them the truth, which is that we cannot find evidence for telekinesis, nor can we conceive of a way in which it would be physically possible, merely confuses the matter.

I agree with everything you said here. However, Kevin argues that simply disbelieving in God fits under the umbrella of "faith," no matter what the reason, whereas I think disbelief based on an evaluation of the evidence is not. So I was saying, for the purposes of this thread, we need to explain exactly what we mean when we say "faith" is or isn't a good thing. That's pretty much what I've been trying to get at.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE.

Did you read it that time?

You cannot prove a negative. You can only show that there is no compelling evidence for the positive claim. That's what's known as burden of proof. If the side on which the burden of proof lies cannot sufficiently establish its case, it is considered disproven. This is logic.

Chuckit lack of proof is not proof. You saying you don't believe because of LACK of proof. Lack of PROOF is not proof in itself. You don't believe because you have faith that the lack of proof has shown you something doesn't exist.

Nevermind the fact that I see proof all around me daily.

Again, any belief based on something you have no proof of requires faith. There is no "proving negatives" here. That is a spin on your part.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Chuckit you are absolutely correct and it's pretty clear they're just engaging in word play in order to argue "you have faith too!"

Yes WE are the ones engaging in wordplay. Not him.

That's funny.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Uh, that's not what I said at all. I just dispute that it's rational to claim as truth something that can't be proven. You can claim it as highly likely, you can claim it as probable, you can claim it as your strongly held belief. But to claim it as truth is to be intellectually dishonest, because, as you yourself said, it cannot be proven.

Exactly.

I've always respected nonhuman for being secularist and admitting faith was involved.

Butt then again he has always been secure in his beliefs...

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yes WE are the ones engaging in wordplay. Not him.

That's funny.

You can use smilies all you want, but to disbelieve in something because you've see no evidence for it is not 'faith' by any logical or philosophical (or theological, or any other) definition, and is only used by people on internet boards trying to engage in "you too!" -ism.

There may be cases where disbelief is a faith. If a man disbelieves that his obviously unfaithful wife is cheating on him, that may be a kind of faith. But that's not what chuckit is talking about - he's talking about the situation where someone (for example) doesn't believe in God because he hasn't seen any convincing evidence for God. To call that faith is to turn the meaning of the word upside down.

[Rumor]

faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.


American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source faith (fāth) Pronunciation Key
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.


faith

noun
1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" [syn: religion]
2. complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
3. an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" [syn: religion]
4. loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"


Faith

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God. Historical faith is the apprehension of and assent to certain statements which are regarded as mere facts of history. Temporary faith is that state of mind which is awakened in men (e.g., Felix) by the exhibition of the truth and by the influence of religious sympathy, or by what is sometimes styled the common operation of the Holy Spirit. Saving faith is so called because it has eternal life inseparably connected with it. It cannot be better defined than in the words of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel." The object of saving faith is the whole revealed Word of God. Faith accepts and believes it as the very truth most sure. But the special act of faith which unites to Christ has as its object the person and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 7:38; Acts 16:31). This is the specific act of faith by which a sinner is justified before God (Rom. 3:22, 25; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9; John 3:16-36; Acts 10:43; 16:31). In this act of faith the believer appropriates and rests on Christ alone as Mediator in all his offices. This assent to or belief in the truth received upon the divine testimony has always associated with it a deep sense of sin, a distinct view of Christ, a consenting will, and a loving heart, together with a reliance on, a trusting in, or resting in Christ. It is that state of mind in which a poor sinner, conscious of his sin, flees from his guilty self to Christ his Saviour, and rolls over the burden of all his sins on him. It consists chiefly, not in the assent given to the testimony of God in his Word, but in embracing with fiducial reliance and trust the one and only Saviour whom God reveals. This trust and reliance is of the essence of faith. By faith the believer directly and immediately appropriates Christ as his own. Faith in its direct act makes Christ ours. It is not a work which God graciously accepts instead of perfect obedience, but is only the hand by which we take hold of the person and work of our Redeemer as the only ground of our salvation. Saving faith is a moral act, as it proceeds from a renewed will, and a renewed will is necessary to believing assent to the truth of God (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:4). Faith, therefore, has its seat in the moral part of our nature fully as much as in the intellectual. The mind must first be enlightened by divine teaching (John 6:44; Acts 13:48; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 1:17, 18) before it can discern the things of the Spirit. Faith is necessary to our salvation (Mark 16:16), not because there is any merit in it, but simply because it is the sinner's taking the place assigned him by God, his falling in with what God is doing. The warrant or ground of faith is the divine testimony, not the reasonableness of what God says, but the simple fact that he says it. Faith rests immediately on, "Thus saith the Lord." But in order to this faith the veracity, sincerity, and truth of God must be owned and appreciated, together with his unchangeableness. God's word encourages and emboldens the sinner personally to transact with Christ as God's gift, to close with him, embrace him, give himself to Christ, and take Christ as his. That word comes with power, for it is the word of God who has revealed himself in his works, and especially in the cross. God is to be believed for his word's sake, but also for his name's sake. Faith in Christ secures for the believer freedom from condemnation, or justification before God; a participation in the life that is in Christ, the divine life (John 14:19; Rom. 6:4-10; Eph. 4:15,16, etc.); "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1); and sanctification (Acts 26:18; Gal. 5:6; Acts 15:9). All who thus believe in Christ will certainly be saved (John 6:37, 40; 10:27, 28; Rom. 8:1). The faith=the gospel (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:9; Jude 1:3).

[ironknee]

kevin

so if i don't believe in santa, that's still faith?

we know there is not santa, there is not faith involved

faith plus 50 cents get's you a coffee...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I agree with everything you said here. However, Kevin argues that simply disbelieving in God fits under the umbrella of "faith," no matter what the reason, whereas I think disbelief based on an evaluation of the evidence is not. So I was saying, for the purposes of this thread, we need to explain exactly what we mean when we say "faith" is or isn't a good thing. That's pretty much what I've been trying to get at.

Now it depends on what you actually mean by 'disbelief'. I 'disbelieve' in God. By which I mean that I do not affirm the existence of any God(s). However I do not state unequivocally that God does not exist. I do not think that God exists, but, as this is impossible to prove, I cannot say that I am 100% positive of that. Nor do I say that Zeus or Osiris or Oberon do not exist, I merely assume, in my own personal conception of the universe, that they are not there based on, what seems to me, to be a high likelihood of truth due to a) the lack of evidence, and b) the conclusions of many deductions I've made based on observations of the universe and logical extrapolations from those conclusions, that they do not. As such, I operate on a day to day level under the assumption that there is no God. It is functionally the same thing as declaring that there is no God for the most part. However, as it is impossible to prove that this is the case, it is impossible for anyone to be 100% certain of that without a leap of faith.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You can use smilies all you want, but to disbelieve in something because you've see no evidence for it is not 'faith' by any logical or philosophical (or theological, or any other) definition, and is only used by people on internet boards trying to engage in "you too!" -ism.

That is not true at all. Dismissing something because there is no proof still requires faith.

Lack of proof does not = proof.

You you base a belief on the LACK of proof of something you are STILL basing that belief on FAITH.

As far as the "You too" excuse, you can attempt to pin that baseless accusation on me, but attempting to say that is why nonhuman is doing it is laughable.

There may be cases where disbelief is a faith. If a man disbelieves that his obviously unfaithful wife is cheating on him, that may be a kind of faith. But that's not what chuckit is talking about - he's talking about the situation where someone (for example) doesn't believe in God because he hasn't seen any convincing evidence for God. To call that faith is to turn the meaning of the word upside down.

It's not voluntary faith. But it's faith non the less.

To hold a belief about something that you have no proof of, requires faith. Practiced or not.

Faith as pointed above is just the belief in something you have no proof in.

There is NO PROOF that God exists or that God does not exist.

No amount of word spin is going to change this simple fact.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Now it depends on what you actually mean by 'disbelief'. I 'disbelieve' in God. By which I mean that I do not affirm the existence of any God(s). However I do not state unequivocally that God does not exist. I do not think that God exists, but, as this is impossible to prove, I cannot say that I am 100% positive of that. Nor do I say that Zeus or Osiris or Oberon do not exist, I merely assume, in my own personal conception of the universe, that they are not there based on, what seems to me, to be a high likelihood of truth due to a) the lack of evidence, and b) the conclusions of many deductions I've made based on observations of the universe and logical extrapolations from those conclusions, that they do not. As such, I operate on a day to day level under the assumption that there is no God. It is functionally the same thing as declaring that there is no God for the most part. However, as it is impossible to prove that this is the case, it is impossible for anyone to be 100% certain of that without a leap of faith.

BINGO!