Faith vs blind faith

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can compare them all day long. What I can't do is validate any of them.

But what you can do is take the EasyJet to Athens airport take the bus to mount Olympus and climb up it.

Similarly take Ryanair to Dublin.......................................................

[Outrider]

But what you can do is take the EasyJet to Athens airport take the bus to mount Olympus and climb up it.

Like I can go to Mount Ararat and look for the resting place of Noah's Ark, or go to Egypt and find the archaeological evidence for the Exodus? The 'spiritual' home of the Greek gods was Mount Olympus, but you don't get in just by climbing, you also have to be worthy, otherwise you just get to the top of the hill.

Similarly take Ryanair to Dublin.......................................................

Ryanair to Dublin would probably leave me closer to Mount Olympus than EasyJet to Athens would...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

For this purpose, the descriptions are the "ends". And the question (yet again) was about why one person’s faith belief has any epistemic value for anyone else. If your answer is, "it hasn't" then why not just say so?   

Look either you are right and the universe is God free then that is true for everybody. If I am right then God is true for everyone. As it is you are not a proper atheist since the possibility of a God is still acknowledged by you. I use the word possibility because you do have a tendency to guff on about probabilities but never manage to produce your working out.

And that is as far as we can go in our conversation.
 No theist as far as you have been able to show has said on these boards '' God is true for you because that's my faith ''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Like I can go to Mount Ararat and look for the resting place of Noah's Ark, or go to Egypt and find the archaeological evidence for the Exodus? The 'spiritual' home of the Greek gods was Mount Olympus, but you don't get in just by climbing, you also have to be worthy, otherwise you just get to the top of the hill.

Ryanair to Dublin would probably leave me closer to Mount Olympus than EasyJet to Athens would...

O.
[/quote
Had to laugh at your last comment....tried not to but failed.
Noah's ark is not God, Exodus is not God.

[Outrider]

As it is you are not a proper atheist since the possibility of a God is still acknowledged by you.

Again with this? Agnosticism is not a half-way house, it's a position on a different question to 'do you believe there is one or more gods'. Agnosticism is a position on 'do you think it's possible to prove the existence or non-existence of gods'. You can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Look either you are right and the universe is God free then that is true for everybody.

That’s a misrepresentation. Again. My position (as you well know) is that I’ve yet to hear a cogent argument for there being a universe in which “God” is present.

If I am right then God is true for everyone.

That’s a false binary – see above.

As it is you are not a proper atheist since the possibility of a God is still acknowledged by you.

That’s another misrepresentation. A “proper” atheist is just someone who does not believe in gods, not someone who believes there are no gods. The difference is everything.

I use the word possibility because you do have a tendency to guff on about probabilities but never manage to produce your working out.

You’re going for the hat trick of wrong here I see. You don’t need “working out” to recognise probability as a generalised phenomenon. As there’d be no way to know with certainty that there are no gods (or leprechauns), “there certainly are no gods” is unsustainable. 

And that is as far as we can go in our conversation.

No it isn’t because “our conversation” was actually about something else – the epistemic value (or absence of it) of faith.

No theist as far as you have been able to show has said on these boards '' God is true for you because that's my faith ''

You’re kidding right? If not for validating their truths claims – ie, that it's not "blind" – what on earth do you think Christians who do use “but that’s my faith” mean by it? 

[Sebastian Toe]

But what you can do is take the EasyJet to Athens airport take the bus to mount Olympus and climb up it

.......and then what?

[Sebastian Toe]

 No theist as far as you have been able to show has said on these boards '' God is true for you because that's my faith ''

Does this come close?

There has been some arguments about faith being true.

So why don't those arguing against it prove Christ to be false complete with actual evidence and show God has lied in his promises
in the OT.

So I guess that is an end to the matter. We can know faith is true and God is real and atheists just have to accept that what they cannot
disprove means it can be accepted as existing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does this come close?

Not sure It depends on context for instance is Sassy responding to someone who has declared God unprovable therefore belief in God is unacceptable and Sassy is refuting that sentiment then that would be a no.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Fun as it is watching you being more slippery than a buttered boa on a black run, it'd save time all round if you just gave a simple yes/no answer.

Do you think religious faith is epistemically worthless?

Answer A: Yes.

Answer B: No.

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

Fun as it is watching you being more slippery than a buttered boa on a black run, it'd save time all round if you just gave a simple yes/no answer.

Do you think religious faith is epistemically worthless?

Answer A: Yes.

Answer B: No.

Can I just check here that you would think morality is epistemically worthless?

[Shaker]

Can I just check here that you would think morality is epistemically worthless?

Is there any reason for linking religion with morality, given that the latter can (and as far as many of us are concerned actually does) exist without the former?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Fun as it is watching you being more slippery than a buttered boa on a black run, it'd save time all round if you just gave a simple yes/no answer.

NURSE.....He's projecting again!!!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Can I just check here that you would think morality is epistemically worthless?

By all means - no, I don't think it is. What has that to do though with the claims of fact of the religious - eg, "God is"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

NURSE.....He's projecting again!!!!

So was that A or B?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

By all means - no, I don't think it is. What has that to do though with the claims of fact of the religious - eg, "God is"?

I wanted to understand what you meant by epistemically worthless. I have no understanding why you think morality isn't different from guessing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I wanted to understand what you meant by epistemically worthless. I have no understanding why you think morality isn't different from guessing.

The difference is in the status of the claims. A moral philosopher will not (by and large) say something like, "this moral position is factually correct" whereas the theist will say, "God is a fact". The ones who do claim moral certainty by the way are the religious - Vlad for example seems to think that there are moral absolutes somehow floating around "out there" that he can tap into, though how that would work in practice is anyone's guess.   

[Owlswing]

So the Leprechaunist analogy is invalid because you don't think there are any. Does that mean that the comparison with adherents of Norse mythology is invalid because there are none (or at least, presumably, vanishingly few) any more?

O.

Quite a large proportion of the population of Iceland are followers of the Norse deities, there are more then a few in the UK and there are also followers in Lithuania.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

The difference is in the status of the claims. A moral philosopher will not (by and large) say something like, "this moral position is factually correct" whereas the theist will say, "God is a fact". The ones who do claim moral certainty by the way are the religious - Vlad for example seems to think that there are moral absolutes somehow floating around "out there" that he can tap into, though how that would work in practice is anyone's guess.   

YOU: need to define what you mean by "fact"
WE: need to make a judgment on whether Theists are claiming it as that type of fact.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

YOU: need to define what you mean by "fact"

Me: No I don't - there are plenty of good dictionaries that will do it for you.[/quote]

WE: need to make a judgment on whether Theists are claiming it as that type of fact.

Who the hell are "WE"?

So anyway, as it seems to have escaped your attention (again): Was that Answer A or Answer B?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Me: No I don't - there are plenty of good dictionaries that will do it for you.

Who the hell are "WE"?

So anyway, as it seems to have escaped your attention (again): Was that Answer A or Answer B?

Evasion noted.

[Maeght]

YOU: need to define what you mean by "fact"
WE: need to make a judgment on whether Theists are claiming it as that type of fact.

Type of fact?  Are there different types?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Type of fact?  Are there different types?

If you think there is only one type of fact then it should be a short job to define it. Nobody seems to want to.
This immediately leads US into the suspicion that the definition is materialist based and since materialism cannot be demonstrated a materialist doesn't  want to define what a fact is.

As it happens there are more Moral realists than Hillside wants to let on.
If facts are what is real then moral philosophers are presenting facts.

[Maeght]

If you think there is only one type of fact then it should be a short job to define it. Nobody seems to want to.
This immediately leads US into the suspicion that the definition is materialist based and since materialism cannot be demonstrated a materialist doesn't  want to define what a fact is.

As it happens there are more Moral realists than Hillside wants to let on.
If facts are what is real then moral philosophers are presenting facts.

There is a difference between the definition of the word and if there are different types surely. A fact is something which us known or proven to be true. Based on this what different types of fact are there?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Evasion noted.

Epic irony, just epic.