• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How is faith a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

To skeptics faith is nothing more than the ability to suspend disbelief when common sense and reason would clearly support disbelief. I'm sorry, but to me faith is a measure of how purposely gullible a person can be. Am I wrong? Is there any rational argument for faith being a virtuous and reasonable attribute?
 

john2054

Member
Faith means love of god. but it equates to love for your fellow man. and yes Jesus often called himself, the son of man.
 

nazz

Doubting Thomas
To skeptics faith is nothing more than the ability to suspend disbelief when common sense and reason would clearly support disbelief. I'm sorry, but to me faith is a measure of how purposely gullible a person can be. Am I wrong? Is there any rational argument for faith being a virtuous and reasonable attribute?
If that is your definition of faith then in general I agree with your view of it. Although I can think of some instances when maintaining belief despite contrary evidence could pay off.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
I think rational faith is the ability to accept something as true when the evidence and your own common sense and reason are pointing TOWARDS it being true, not against it being true(that would be irrational faith).
 

jeager106

Learning more about Jehovah.
Premium Member
To skeptics faith is nothing more than the ability to suspend disbelief when common sense and reason would clearly support disbelief. I'm sorry, but to me faith is a measure of how purposely gullible a person can be. Am I wrong? Is there any rational argument for faith being a virtuous and reasonable attribute?

Yes you are wrong.
Well you did ask the question.
Faith is a belief in that which cannot be proved or disproved.
Attribute is something being caused by someone or something.
Virtuous is showing or having high moral standards.
Common sense is subjective now isn't it? I doubt sense is common.
Rational deals with reason & logic.
You are asking about faith which can defy logic or reason.
I doubt anyone could supply you with a rational argument for faith being a virtuous or
reasonable attribute.
Just looking at your avatar, the name of your avatar; Just Wondering/JERK
and next to religion: you wrote "No thanks" negates any attempt to make a reasonable argument in the affirmative to you.
Please understand that I'm not attempting to be rude, just explaining why it would be very difficult to explain the rewards of my religious faith, the components that make that faith a virtuous attribute, would be futile to you.
Your avatar, your avatar name speaks volumes about you.
I will posit a question for you to ponder.
Why would you post such a question on a board that deals with issues of a religious nature?
 

fschmidt

Old Testament Reactionary
To skeptics faith is nothing more than the ability to suspend disbelief when common sense and reason would clearly support disbelief. I'm sorry, but to me faith is a measure of how purposely gullible a person can be. Am I wrong? Is there any rational argument for faith being a virtuous and reasonable attribute?
Yes you are wrong. Any belief system requires axioms from which to derive conclusions, and these axioms must be taken on faith. Anyone who denies faith is simply a liar. In my case, I have only one axiom which is that inductive reasoning works. That is my faith.
 
Faith means love of god. but it equates to love for your fellow man. and yes Jesus often called himself, the son of man.

The god you speak of is not something that exists in reality. It exists in the minds of those that believe and that is the only place YOUR god can be demonstrated to exist. Also, humans are fully capable of love and empathy without invoking a supernatural force.

Your faith falls under description 2, 3, and 5 highlighted below.

faith

[feyth]
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.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Now I see why you call yourself Jerk, you have faith that there is no God, not proof, perhaps you think you have evidence, do you have faith that gravity exists, I think so, perhaps you have more proof for gravity, but to many of us God is just as real as gravity.
 

Faybull

Well-Known Member
To skeptics faith is nothing more than the ability to suspend disbelief when common sense and reason would clearly support disbelief. I'm sorry, but to me faith is a measure of how purposely gullible a person can be. Am I wrong? Is there any rational argument for faith being a virtuous and reasonable attribute?


You knew, by faith, that when you hit "post reply", it would post, yes?


Edit* post thread
 
Just looking at your avatar, the name of your avatar; Just Wondering/JERK
and next to religion: you wrote "No thanks" negates any attempt to make a reasonable argument in the affirmative to you.
Please understand that I'm not attempting to be rude, just explaining why it would be very difficult to explain the rewards of my religious faith, the components that make that faith a virtuous attribute, would be futile to you.
Your avatar, your avatar name speaks volumes about you.
I will posit a question for you to ponder.
Why would you post such a question on a board that deals with issues of a religious nature?

Recently in another thread a Christian brought up the issue of faith to support his position. However, to a skeptic and unbeliever like myself having faith in fantastical, improvable things and flaunting it like its something to be proud of doesn't make any sense. Why should anyone who does not share your belief system give any credence to your faith?
 

Faybull

Well-Known Member
Recently in another thread a Christian brought up the issue of faith to support his position. However, to a skeptic and unbeliever like myself having faith in fantastical, improvable things and flaunting it like its something to be proud of doesn't make any sense. Why should anyone who does not share your belief system give any credence to your faith?
Well then.
Concerning "Skepticism":

Eye am, in the (.....).

Pyrrho was a Greek philosopher from Elis, and founder of the Greek school of skepticism. In his youth he practiced the art of painting, but passed over this for philosophy. He studied the writings of Democritus, became a disciple of Bryson, the son of Stilpo, and later a disciple of Anaxarchus. He took part in the Indian expedition of Alexander the Great, and met with philosophers of the Indus region. Back in Greece he was frustrated with the assertions of the Dogmatists (those who claimed to possess knowledge), and founded a new school in which he taught fallibilism, namely that every object of human knowledge involves uncertainty. Thus, he argued, it is impossible ever to arrive at the knowledge of truth (Diog. Laert, 58). It is related that he acted on his own principles, and carried his skepticism to such an extreme, that his friends were obliged to accompany him wherever he went, so he might not be run over by carriages or fall down precipices. It is likely, though, that these reports were invented by the Dogmatists whom he opposed. He spent a great part of his life in solitude, and was undisturbed by fear, or joy, or grief. He withstood bodily pain, and when in danger showed no sign of apprehension. In disputes he was known for his subtlety. Epicurus, though no friend to skepticism, admired Pyrrho because he recommended and practiced the kind of self-control that fostered tranquillity; this, for Epicurus, was the end of all physical and moral science. Pyrrho was so highly valued by his countrymen that they honored him with the office of chief priest and, out of respect for him, passed a decree by which all philosophers were made immune from taxation. He was an admirer of poets, particularly Homer, and frequently cited passages from his poems. After his death, the Athenians honored his memory with a statue, and a monument to him was erected in his own country.

Pyrrho left no writings, and we owe our knowledge of his thoughts to his disciple Timon of Phlius. His philosophy, in common with all post-Aristotelian systems, is purely practical in its outlook. Skepticism is not posited on account of its speculative interest, but only because Pyrrho sees in it the road to happiness (Which happiness is of the opinion of its bearer), and the escape from the calamities of life. The proper course of the sage, said Pyrrho, is to ask himself three questions. Firstly we must ask what things are and how they are constituted. Secondly, we ask how we are related to these things. Thirdly, we ask what ought to be our attitude towards them. As to what things are, we can only answer that we know nothing. We only know how things appear to us, but of their inner substance we are ignorant. The inner substance, is known by experience) (To refrain from experience is ignorance in and of itself, as everything is of experience) The same thing appears differently to different people, and therefore it is impossible to know which opinion is right. The diversity of opinion among the wise, as well as among the vulgar, proves this. To every assertion the contradictory assertion can be opposed with equally good grounds, and whatever my opinion, the contrary opinion is believed by somebody else who is quite as clever and competent to judge as I am. Opinion we may have, but certainty and knowledge are impossible. Hence our attitude to things (the third question), ought to be complete suspense of judgment. We can be certain of nothing, not even of the most trivial assertions. Therefore we ought never to make any positive statements on any subject. (Of the subject itself, being certain of no thing is a contradiction) And the Pyrrhonists were careful to import an element of doubt even into the most trifling assertions which they might make in the course of their daily life. They did not say, “it is so,” but “it seems so,” or “it appears so to me.” Every observation would be prefixed with a “perhaps,” or “it may be.”

This absence of certainty applies as much to practical as to theoretical matters. Nothing is in itself true or false. It only appears so. In the same way, nothing is in itself good or evil. (Appearance is what gives the idea of being good, good and evil, evil) It is only opinion, custom, law, which makes it so. When the sage realizes this, he will cease to prefer one course of action to another, and the result will be apathy (ataraxia). All action is the result of preference, and preference is the belief that one thing is better than another. If I go to the north, it is because, for one reason or another, I believe that it is better than going to the south. (This belief is founded upon the experience. It is of an opinion) Suppress this belief, learn that the one is not in reality better than the other, but only appears so, and one would go in no direction at all. Complete suppression of opinion would mean complete suppression of action, and it was at this that Pyrrho aimed. To have no opinions was the skeptical maxim, because in practice it meant apathy, total quietism.(Apathy is to hold to the opinion of what Apathy is itself) All action is founded on belief, and all belief is delusion, hence the absence of all activity is the ideal of the sage. In this apathy he will renounce all desires, for desire is the opinion that one thing is better than another. He will live in complete repose, in undisturbed tranquillity of soul, free from all delusions. Unhappiness is the result of not attaining what one desires, or of losing it when attained. The wise person, being free from desires, is free from unhappiness. (In so much as the wise person would know that one must desire to be free from desire, and thus nulls the very suggestion)He knows that, though people struggle and fight for what they desire, vainly supposing some things better than others, such activity is but a futile struggle about nothing, for all things are equally indifferent, and nothing matters. Between health and sickness, life and death, difference there is none. (It is certain, the living know not death, as just as certain the dead know nothing of living. Just as it is certain the difference as there is the application of health and sickness)Yet insofar as we are compelled to act, we will follow probability, opinion, custom, and law, but without any belief in the essential validity or truth of these criteria.

Taken from: "Pyrrho | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

upload_2014-12-27_19-43-23.gif

"


Therefore, the Skeptic sits on a fence knowing there is a fence to sit on.
 
Now I see why you call yourself Jerk, you have faith that there is no God, not proof, perhaps you think you have evidence, do you have faith that gravity exists, I think so, perhaps you have more proof for gravity, but to many of us God is just as real as gravity.

If you can provide actual physical evidence (that a skeptic would accept) that a god exists than do so. I see no evidence to suggest a god must exist let alone has intervened in human affairs. Thousands of gods have been worshipped by humans over the centuries yet where are they? If a god exists what makes you think it would care about humanity? If a creator god exists and created the universe what makes you think humanity was intended to exist and not just a by-product of the creation of the universe?
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
So you are admitting that you are a troll on a religious forum, a person with no religion, just here to muck about???? And no, there is often no amount of evidence that a skeptic will accept. Which is why they often aren't rational at all.
 
Last edited:
So you are admitting that you are a troll on a religious forum, a person with no religion, just here to muck about????

So to you someone who does not share your beliefs yet wants to discuss and debate topics related to your belief system constitutes a troll?
 

jeager106

Learning more about Jehovah.
Premium Member
So to you someone who does not share your beliefs yet wants to discuss and debate topics related to your belief system constitutes a troll?

I'm wondering why you bother to post anything here at all.
There is something that motivates you.
Perhaps you are a troll in which case people, me included, only reinforce why
you post here.
Perhaps you enjoy trying to debunk people of faith?
I have no clue but writing a response to you is an excercise in mental
masterbation.
Frankly you don't write like a skeptic. You write more like a cynic: a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
Well if a muslim joined a Buddhist forum, he would be considered a troll, if a Christian joined a Jewish forum he would be considered a troll, I don't see how atheism classifies as a religion, unless because it has that element of faith required that there is no God, when there isn't one way to understand for certain 100% one way or the other, But to call atheism a religion and join a religious forum to argue with people that believe in god, that does sound troll like.
 
You knew, by faith, that when you hit "post reply", it would post, yes?


Edit* post thread

I knew from past experience that when I used my physically existing mouse to click the post reply button on my physically existing monitor that my post would be transmitted via the physically existing internet, unless there was some kind of physically occurring technical problem along the way. I believe in the physical world because it exists. I can have faith in someone to do something they say they'll do because they physically exist and I have dealt with them before. How am I supposed to have faith in something that cannot be shown to even exist? Is that rational?
 

Lyndon

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014
Premium Member
jerk, you have faith that there is no God, and evidently that sustains you, you have faith that you will have food tomorrow, you have faith that your house won't burn down, you ARE a man of faith, and I respect that!!
 
Top