Why is faith considered a virtue rather than the curse it really is?

[Skeptisch]

For most part reason only ever confirms a person’s belief pattern and makes it stronger. Whether the person is a theist, atheist or otherwise.

It happens to be the case that people do change their minds, but they more often than not seek to confirm the opinions that they already hold.

That sounds ok, but shouldn’t we make sure we understand that belief in scientific evidence is not the same as belief in belief (Daniel Dennett)?

 

[logician]

Faith really is based in obstinance.

 

[footprints]

What are you imply with “thinking people would know I was talking about a normal, healthy brain”? Have you given any thought to the fact that there are billion of people that share our views and a small number of atheist and their theories are considered odd (not normal, as shared by other) all this is in spite that they don’t know how life began and the promises that believing there is no God make you smarter. There must be something, does it? If it was an explosion; what happen to Maxwell’s implosion theory?

There was no implication there.

 

[footprints]

Associations are cheap and plentiful. Why would I need to make more of them at this point?

Didn't think you could.

If that were true, then people could never be mistaken about things that they held to be true. Yet people people hold mistaken beliefs about the world all the time. I think that you are trying to make a point about subjectivity here, but you aren't doing a very good job of it.

Yes, people do make mistakes, scentists, butchers and candle stick makers, atheists and theists, and my goodness, nobody is exempt from them.

We aren't in disagreement over this point and never have been. You are trying to tell me something obvious as if it made a substantive point in the discussion. It is true that people hold beliefs that are supported by lots of other associations. The point I have been trying to make about logic and reason is that they are part of a process of belief maintenance. It happens to be the case that people do change their minds, but they more often than not seek to confirm the opinions that they already hold. So changes in fundamental belief patterns--those that have a great many associations with other cherished beliefs--are naturally going to be slow to change. That does not mean that argument is pointless. The debate between atheists and theists is an important one, and there is no reason why we should walk away from it simply because belief patterns are resistant to change.

Anything obvious makes a substantive point on both sides of any debate, simply because it is obvious to all.

The debate between atheist and theist is only important to people who hold it important.

 

[Sunstone]

Faith really is based in obstinance.

Interesting point. I would be less than inclined to believe you, except I've been around RF for a while and have seen much more obstinance than I once believed possible.

 

[footprints]

That sounds ok, but shouldn’t we make sure we understand that belief in scientific evidence is not the same as belief in belief (Daniel Dennett)?

Daniel Dennett is tied to his own belief pattern, why wouldn't he support it?

And,

It Dennett changed his mind and opinion, would you still herald him? or would your own belief patterns stop you and change your opinion of him?

 

[Buttons*]

Well, you need faith no matter what you believe. Without faith, you'd have to go on first hand experience alone. It would be hard to only believe things that you knew first hand.... especially by way of sciences etc.

 

[Copernicus]

Anything obvious makes a substantive point on both sides of any debate, simply because it is obvious to all.

Stating the obvious is a waste of everyone's time, as they struggle to figure out just why it needed to be stated in the first place.

The debate between atheist and theist is only important to people who hold it important.

Oh, gosh. I never realized that. :sarcastic

 

[footprints]

Stating the obvious is a waste of everyone's time, as they struggle to figure out just why it needed to be stated in the first place.



Oh, gosh. I never realized that. :sarcastic

The obvious was needed Copernicus so you could relate to it.

I know you didn't, and why I raised it.

 

[Skeptisch]

Daniel Dennett is tied to his own belief pattern, why wouldn't he support it?

When someone does not see or acknowledge that a belief in scientific evidence is different from all other beliefs, then that person appears to believe in belief and has lost the foundation for a rational discussion involving science.

What other belief system asks for scientific evidence?

“The problem is that no ethical system has ever achieved consensus. Ethical systems are completely unlike mathematics or science. This is a source of concern.”
Daniel Dennett

 

[Copernicus]

The obvious was needed Copernicus so you could relate to it.

Stating the obvious was only needed because you felt a need to reply but had nothing of substance to say. The fact is that you have painted yourself into a cognitive corner. Everybody has a "belief system". Saying repeatedly that an opinion is part of a "belief system" is completely vacuous. It neither refutes nor supports any claim that comes out of that belief system.

 

[footprints]

Stating the obvious was only needed because you felt a need to reply but had nothing of substance to say. The fact is that you have painted yourself into a cognitive corner. Everybody has a "belief system". Saying repeatedly that an opinion is part of a "belief system" is completely vacuous. It neither refutes nor supports any claim that comes out of that belief system.

If that is the only way you can relate, then I guess to your belief pattern it must be correct.

 

[footprints]

When someone does not see or acknowledge that a belief in scientific evidence is different from all other beliefs, then that person appears to believe in belief and has lost the foundation for a rational discussion involving science.

What other belief system asks for scientific evidence?

“The problem is that no ethical system has ever achieved consensus. Ethical systems are completely unlike mathematics or science. This is a source of concern.”
Daniel Dennett

When a person starts accepting a personal opinon, such as Dennetts, over science, that person is ignorant to science.

 

[Sunstone]

Saying repeatedly that an opinion is part of a "belief system" is completely vacuous.

Agreed. But consider who you are dealing with.

 

[gnomon]

We went through the scientific revolution and enlightenment when many of the greatest minds in Europe developed new scientific, mathematical, philosophical, and social theories.

Today, in the year 2010, close to half of the population of the richest and most advanced nation on earth, the US of A, according to a 2009 Gallup poll, only 39 percent of Americans say they “believe in the theory of evolution,” 25 percent confirm they do not believe in evolution, and 36 percent don’t have an opinion either way.

Proponents of intelligent design—who assert that natural selection cannot explain the complexity of human beings and many other life forms—routinely slight evolution as a mere ‘theory’ despite overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating it’s far far more than some hunch.

Also today many of us still believe and worship a God who lets 18000 children die from sickness and malnutrition every single day of the year. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-17-un-hunger_x.htm Presently we can also see what God thinks of the poorest people in the western hemisphere!

At what point should we start wondering if this supernatural deity, full of love and good will, actually exists?

Practically every scientist of the Scientific Revolution from Newton, Leibniz, Galileo, Kopernik, Bruno, Robert Brown, James Maxwell, etc. in so many diverse fields were theists.

Yes, intelligent design is basically the means to identify stupid people in our age. But to think this maligns all versions of faith is nothing more than a logical fallacy. A generalization.

Also, as an atheist, I find that any time someone remarks that one knows the mind of a God they do not believe in is rather suspect. Also, knowing my personal experience with many Baptists, Southern at that, who are firm in their belief in God, give a rat's *** about evolution or intelligent design, understand that such debates have no bearing on how they live their lives or treat other people.

In other words, you need a better argument.

edit: Am I beginning to sound like Jay?

 

[challupa]

edit: Am I beginning to sound like Jay?

Not really, your post was considerably longer than Jay's traditionally are!

 

[Skeptisch]

Practically every scientist of the Scientific Revolution from Newton, Leibniz, Galileo, Kopernik, Bruno, Robert Brown, James Maxwell, etc. in so many diverse fields were theists.

Before Charles Darwin published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, just about everybody was theistic. Do you think that might have had something to do with the fact that the guys you mentioned were theists?

Also, as an atheist, I find that any time someone remarks that one knows the mind of a God they do not believe in is rather suspect.

An atheist does not know the mind of God because for him the supernatural God does not exist.

 

[emiliano]

Today, in the year 2010, close to half of the population of the richest and most advanced nation on earth, the US of A, according to a 2009 Gallup poll, only 39 percent of Americans say they “believe in the theory of evolution,” 25 percent confirm they do not believe in evolution, and 36 percent don’t have an opinion either way.

Proponents of intelligent design—who assert that natural selection cannot explain the complexity of human beings and many other life forms—routinely slight evolution as a mere ‘theory’ despite overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating it’s far far more than some hunch.

Also today many of us still believe and worship a God who lets 18000 children die from sickness and malnutrition every single day of the year. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-17-un-hunger_x.htm Presently we can also see what God thinks of the poorest people in the western hemisphere!

At what point should we start wondering if this supernatural deity, full of love and good will, actually exists?[/quote]

Is this new, i is it truth?

 

[Thief]

Today, in the year 2010, close to half of the population of the richest and most advanced nation on earth, the US of A, according to a 2009 Gallup poll, only 39 percent of Americans say they “believe in the theory of evolution,” 25 percent confirm they do not believe in evolution, and 36 percent don’t have an opinion either way.

Proponents of intelligent design—who assert that natural selection cannot explain the complexity of human beings and many other life forms—routinely slight evolution as a mere ‘theory’ despite overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating it’s far far more than some hunch.

Also today many of us still believe and worship a God who lets 18000 children die from sickness and malnutrition every single day of the year. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-02-17-un-hunger_x.htm Presently we can also see what God thinks of the poorest people in the western hemisphere!

At what point should we start wondering if this supernatural deity, full of love and good will, actually exists?

I didn't have time to read all of your redirections...I have to go mow my yard...

But your last rhetorical question can be answered.
Full of love?...goodness?....probably.
But if it's God you want to be sure of....
do you think you will find Him by the definitions offered by others?

He does exist.
But He probably isn't what you want Him to be.
He is most likely what a god really is.
If you doubt the existence of God...start with your definition.

 

[emiliano]

Past learning, past knowledge gained can never be extracted from the brain:yes:. Then In psychology or behavioural sciences, I slowly take away their perception of reality and how they relate and associate to it:sarcastic, If a person has a personal spiritual encounter it becomes his/her knowdledge and you said that it can never taken away from the brain. What is it, can it or can’t? Spiritual Knowledge requires Faith and we believe that is given to those that God have Mercy upon. IT is a virtue, a gift to who God has mercy, there some that think that they have it and don’t, they soon backslide, they didn’t have Faith.

Correct, good insight into the subjects.
“At the end of the day, people will choose what is right for them. Only respectful to let them do so“.
The problem that I have is with them is that many refuse to acknowledge it and start to blaming everybody, parents, grandparents, brothers etc.