My point is that people often USE the word belief when they MEAN faith, and vice versa. But in the context of a debate where the meanings of these words are important, I don't see why it is so difficult for religious folks to use the correct word for what they mean.
Atheists and theists are the same.
- Thread starter cookieduster
- Start date
Well, the second definitions of each word seem to tie together.
A belief is "something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group"
Faith is "(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"
Faith is a belief in something, something believed is a belief.
Someone has faith that God exists. God's existence is their belief.
And yet, when you look at the entirety of the definition of each word, it is clear that they mean two different things. In the context of a debate where there is an assertion that the "faith" of nonbelievers is equivalent to the "faith" of believers, I think it is very important to make a distinction between faith, as in, belief, (i.e. conviction of truth especially when based on examination of evidence), and faith as in, faith, (i.e. firm belief in something for which there is no proof).
You can't use the same word for two different concepts and then say look, they are the same.
Okay, but you're on a non-starter, there.
Mike will just tell you that he attributes different meanings to whichever words you come up with and James will stop responding once you ask him something he can't/doesn't want to answer.
At best, you're going to be drawn into a discussion of semantics, so they can avoid admitting that they believe in something on the basis of nothing but blind faith.
Unfortunately not.Quite an accurate assessment
If they don't respond, does that mean I win?
1) Mike will respond. He will argue that he means black when he says white, and that just because a two diemsnional shape is round doesn't make it a circle until the cows come home. You hae to admire the staying power, if nothing else
2) James will return in a while and deny having failed to respond. You'll got through the same argument again and he'll do the same again. Ad infinitum.
And didn't the Cheshire Cat appear and disappear, sometimes in the middle of a conversation? I'm seeing a pattern emerging...In "Alice through the Looking-Glass" Humpty-Dumpty explains that words mean what he wants them to mean "Nothing more nothing less". Perhaps he and Mike375 are related. I think we should be told!
Unfortunately not.
1) Mike will respond. He will argue that he means black when he says white, and that just because a two diemsnional shape is round doesn't make it a circle until the cows come home. You hae to admire the staying power, if nothing else
2) James will return in a while and deny having failed to respond. You'll got through the same argument again and he'll do the same again. Ad infinitum.
And eventually I will tire of this and go away for a few months, only to return eventually and try again.
That's the game they're playing.
You don't have to win, just be the last man standing and claim a win by default.
- Local time
- Today, 17:58
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,493
Mike375:
But here we have the conundrum that natural laws have been explored and in many cases elucidated through experiment. In the sense of proof by repetition of experiment (one of the foundations of science), natural laws are proveable. Religious assertions are not. Particularly since we learned from no less authoritative a source than the Bible itself that God's kingdom is not of this world. Where, then, would we EVER find proof?
I return to a significant point: The definition of the word FAITH includes belief without proof. The definition of BELIEF is broader and includes all sorts of origins for one's belief.
Turning to our authoritative source again, we know that only through FAITH will we come to the side of Jesus. So if you believe what you read, you'll never have any kind of proof until after you die and see for yourself. Or not.
As I pointed out in my post a couple of pages back, you have to agree on terms or you go nowhere fast. And the two sides refuse to speak the same language for fear of conceding some ground that will undermine their positions. Typical.
But here we have the conundrum that natural laws have been explored and in many cases elucidated through experiment. In the sense of proof by repetition of experiment (one of the foundations of science), natural laws are proveable. Religious assertions are not. Particularly since we learned from no less authoritative a source than the Bible itself that God's kingdom is not of this world. Where, then, would we EVER find proof?
I return to a significant point: The definition of the word FAITH includes belief without proof. The definition of BELIEF is broader and includes all sorts of origins for one's belief.
Turning to our authoritative source again, we know that only through FAITH will we come to the side of Jesus. So if you believe what you read, you'll never have any kind of proof until after you die and see for yourself. Or not.
As I pointed out in my post a couple of pages back, you have to agree on terms or you go nowhere fast. And the two sides refuse to speak the same language for fear of conceding some ground that will undermine their positions. Typical.
Atomic Shrimp
Humanoid lifeform
- Local time
- Today, 23:58
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2000
- Messages
- 1,954
Yes, but the point is this: stretching the definition of 'faith' so that it includes what religious people do, fervently and with zeal, but also includes what atheists do, perhaps without really even thinking or caring, results in a term 'faith' that is so broad, bland and inclusive, that statements such as "atheists and theists both have faith" aren't interesting or challenging any more.
Faith will normally be used in conjunction with religion because it is stronger. Different dictionary meanings also back that up.
Someone might answer an Access post and say....I believe this will work but I need to check.....Faith is where you have arrived, no more information available to check but no 100% proof either.
Faith is used with religion because it implies the final decision has been made.
If someone says...I believe that to be the case...that is not final
I don't think blind faith exists too often and that includes religion.
The vast majority of "beleivers" are that way because of how they see things happen here on earth to them and others and in combination with the non science answer.
I believe there is a supernatural but I am not to the stage of having faith. If I was at the stage of having faith I would no longer bother investigating.
However, from other people's perspective I could have blind faith in a supernatural as I have no physical evidence for a supernatural.
Quite an accurate assessment
If they don't respond, does that mean I win?
Keen debating atheists will tell you to avoid the agnostic, go for the "born again" as the agnostic is a moving target
In "Alice through the Looking-Glass" Humpty-Dumpty explains that words mean what he wants them to mean "Nothing more nothing less". Perhaps he and Mike375 are related. I think we should be told!
If you are implying that "believers" have wishful thinking as part of the equation, I would agree with that.
Unfortunately not.
1) Mike will respond. He will argue that he means black when he says white, and that just because a two diemsnional shape is round doesn't make it a circle until the cows come home. You hae to admire the staying power, if nothing else
2) James will return in a while and deny having failed to respond. You'll got through the same argument again and he'll do the same again. Ad infinitum.
If you are referring to me saying the earth and moon are not spheres, they are not. What about spheroid
You don't think the keen atheists have zeal?
Faith does not imply what you do, it implies the strength of the belief. Now of course extra strength of belief can mean someone will do things. For example, the full on atheist is about politics for starters. Removing any and all reference to the Bible from schools, changing the tax system as it applies to churches etc.
Similar threads
