faith as the only reason for believing in God (ritual, spiritual)

[robtex]

Is having faith as the only reason for believing in God a good reason or poor reason? Valid or invalid? Reasonable or unreasonable?

[cardero]

The belief in GOD or the belief that there is not a GOD is valid enough without faith complicating the evidence or non evidence that is needed to prove or disprove the belief into a truth or an untruth.

[Æsahættr]

Invalid, unless it can be shown that faith is falsifiable. If it is not, then faith alone is not a valid reason for a belief, because it makes belief in anything easy, no matter how ridiculous.

[Comet]

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (one of the definitions in Websters)

We can't prove or disprove God by any means I know of at this point in time. A firm belief in something you cannot prove is as good of a reason as any to believe or not believe in God.

[robtex]

Originally Posted by Comet

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (one of the definitions in Websters)

good definition.

Originally Posted by Comet

We can't prove or disprove God by any means I know of at this point in time.

By coincedence you can't disprove anything that is deemed not to exist, and for which there is no evidence to support its proposed existance, including santa claus, the easter bunny the IPU, aliens that abduct humans and the lockness monster.

Originally Posted by Comet

A firm belief in something you cannot prove is as good of a reason as any to believe or not believe in God.

So you are saying all reasons irregardless of methodology are equal?

[cardero]

Originally Posted by robtex

By coincedence you can't disprove anything that is deemed not to exist, and for which there is no evidence to support its proposed existance, including santa claus, the easter bunny the IPU, aliens that abduct humans and the lockness monster.

Be careful with some of your examples. There still exists enough evidence to validate the belief to continuing believing. That is not a reason to apply faith but it is a reason to further research.

[Comet]

[quote=robtex]

By coincedence you can't disprove anything that is deemed not to exist, and for which there is no evidence to support its proposed existance, including santa claus, the easter bunny the IPU, aliens that abduct humans and the lockness monster.

For a child who has faith that Santa Claus is real, he does become real to that child. Many things exist for they exist in our minds.

So you are saying all reasons irregardless of methodology are equal?

To the individual that has faith in something, yes. Many people believe via scientific evidence, many believe things via personal expirience, many believe thiongs out a "spiritual" knowing, and many believe things out of a factor of never seeing evidence to prove them otherwise. Like with Santa Claus, until the child figures out for themselves that he is not real...... he is real in the mind of the child. The mind is how we understand things. If it is real in your mind, then there is a certain reality to it to the believer. (same goes for not believing in anything)

[Fluffy]

Invalid, unless it can be shown that faith is falsifiable. If it is not, then faith alone is not a valid reason for a belief, because it makes belief in anything easy, no matter how ridiculous.

Are you saying that in order for something to be valid, it must be falsifiable? If so, what is your falsifiable justification for this?

By coincedence you can't disprove anything that is deemed not to exist, and for which there is no evidence to support its proposed existance, including santa claus, the easter bunny the IPU, aliens that abduct humans and the lockness monster.

Yep. Faith in God is equally rational as a faith in santa. It is also equally rational to having faith in our senses.

Having faith in something is as reasonable as not having faith in something as long as there is no evidence either way. If I have a reason or evidence that contradicts my faith then it would be unreasonable to continue holding that faith. If I had an emotional response that contradicted my faith it would be unreasonable to continue holding my faith.

[Karl R]

Originally Posted by robtex

Is having faith as the only reason for believing in God a good reason or poor reason? Valid or invalid? Reasonable or unreasonable?

It's a starting point.

It is nice to have experiences that support a belief/disbelief in god, but many people are not fortunate enough to have those experiences.

It is nice to know something of god's existence because you have some sense of the spirit or to the energy that connects everything. But most people can't sense that (myself included).

It is nice to use reasoning to support a belief/disbelief in god, but people are not equally gifted in their powers of reasoning.

It is nice to have a rigorous religious education to support a belief/disbelief in god, but many people lack good teachers or time to devote to that level of learning.

For many people, faith alone has to be sufficient to support their belief/disbelief, because they lack any other options. As a child, faith was all I had to rely upon. I'm fortunate enough to have more to rely on at this point in my life.

Originally Posted by robtex

So you are saying all reasons irregardless of methodology are equal?

I would say that criticizing someone's methodology is like criticizing a poor, single mother for not rearing her childring in the same manner as an upper class, two-parent family would. The situation isn't equal for everybody.