Phi for All Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 The fact is : Simply having a Strong Unflinching FAITH itself motivates the believer and creates a cooperative environment and pattern of behavior which increases the chances of cure of diseases etc and Miracles do happen while doubting Thomases remain where they are and may deteriorate further. This is where the less intelligent and less scientific score over others. While we know that a positive attitude can aid in health and recovery from an illness, there is no evidence that shows a religious positive attitude is any more effective than a non-religious one. In fact, some religions actually prefer their faith to medical practices altogether, and regularly let people die from maladies that doctors could have treated easily. And why don't more people think it's odd that their omnipotent god can cure all kinds of cancer and other diseases, but never, NEVER, fixes someone who lost a limb? If there was a reason, wouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the religious literature? Can it be that every single person who ever had an amputation lacked the right amount of faith? There have been a lot of strong, unflinching soldiers who lost limbs to land mines, LOTS of them. Statistically, you would think that if it were possible for a god to heal them, it would have happened by now. I'm going to use your exact words (without the capitalization), "a strong, unflinching faith", and ask you, do you think there is a benefit to this kind of faith over rational thought? I ask because it sounds like a form of belief that ignores any detractors, remains steadfast even when reality refutes it, and encourages its participants to believe, with every fiber of their being, in something they can't possibly know for sure. 1
Commander Posted February 20, 2015 Author Posted February 20, 2015 While we know that a positive attitude can aid in health and recovery from an illness, there is no evidence that shows a religious positive attitude is any more effective than a non-religious one. In fact, some religions actually prefer their faith to medical practices altogether, and regularly let people die from maladies that doctors could have treated easily. And why don't more people think it's odd that their omnipotent god can cure all kinds of cancer and other diseases, but never, NEVER, fixes someone who lost a limb? If there was a reason, wouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the religious literature? Can it be that every single person who ever had an amputation lacked the right amount of faith? There have been a lot of strong, unflinching soldiers who lost limbs to land mines, LOTS of them. Statistically, you would think that if it were possible for a god to heal them, it would have happened by now. I'm going to use your exact words (without the capitalization), "a strong, unflinching faith", and ask you, do you think there is a benefit to this kind of faith over rational thought? I ask because it sounds like a form of belief that ignores any detractors, remains steadfast even when reality refutes it, and encourages its participants to believe, with every fiber of their being, in something they can't possibly know for sure. Many of your points are valid. Blind Faith and Ignorance and Negligence are of no use whether with Faith or without. Rational and Scientific approach is the best and optimal for a situation provided all tools/medicines/support is available. But Sheer Faith itself has a Power which is equivalent to a Strong Determination and Will Power. Faith has to be invoked with Hope of some impossibility to become a possibility and that kind of faith can not be pretended with or exhibited by practical and rational thinkers. Faith can also overcome differences which Logic and Science can not so that it is possible to have Equality , Trust and Friendship between Black, White , Brown or Yellow 100 % ! Or it leads to hatred, conflict and war. Yes, just Religious Fanaticism will be no good to prevent such failures. But Religion is neither the cause nor can be blamed of because No Religion teaches such tendencies !
Moontanman Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 But Religion is neither the cause nor can be blamed of because No Religion teaches such tendencies ! This one statement either shows you are totally ignorant of what religions teach or you are intentionally lying about what religions teach....
swansont Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Faith can also overcome differences which Logic and Science can not so that it is possible to have Equality , Trust and Friendship between Black, White , Brown or Yellow 100 % ! One more thing asserted without any evidence to back it up.
Commander Posted February 20, 2015 Author Posted February 20, 2015 This one statement either shows you are totally ignorant of what religions teach or you are intentionally lying about what religions teach.... If you think there are Religions that teach hatred between Human Beings prove that One more thing asserted without any evidence to back it up. You want evidence go to Science Threads !
swansont Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 You want evidence go to Science Threads ! You made a claim of fact, not of faith. You don't get to hide behind some false shield of this being religion.
Commander Posted February 20, 2015 Author Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) You made a claim of fact, not of faith. You don't get to hide behind some false shield of this being religion. You thought it is some Mathematical Equation ? So here it is : Black = White = Brown = Yellow is True by Faith but False as per Science ! Edited February 20, 2015 by Commander
Phi for All Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Many of your points are valid. Blind Faith and Ignorance and Negligence are of no use whether with Faith or without. Rational and Scientific approach is the best and optimal for a situation provided all tools/medicines/support is available. But Sheer Faith itself has a Power which is equivalent to a Strong Determination and Will Power. Can you please explain the differences between "Strong, Unflinching FAITH", "Blind Faith", and "Sheer Faith"? What is the difference between faith and blind faith? I thought the very definition of faith was believing in something in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, accepting it without question. How is that different than blindly believing? Faith has to be invoked with Hope of some impossibility to become a possibility and that kind of faith can not be pretended with or exhibited by practical and rational thinkers. Are you saying faith is mainly useful to invoke miracles? Faith can also overcome differences which Logic and Science can not so that it is possible to have Equality , Trust and Friendship between Black, White , Brown or Yellow 100 % ! The fact that you bring up skin color as some kind of meaningful difference among the human species shows that your religious stance isn't as sophisticated as the scientific one. Equality, trust, and friendship are completely attainable without religion. In fact, many Christian groups like the John Birch Society opposed the civil rights movement in the US.
swansont Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 You thought it is some Mathematical Equation ? So here it is : Black = White = Brown = Yellow is True by Faith but False as per Science ! OK, since you totally missed the point: the claim for which you have not presented evidence is "Faith can also overcome differences which Logic and Science can not"
Commander Posted February 20, 2015 Author Posted February 20, 2015 Can you please explain the differences between "Strong, Unflinching FAITH", "Blind Faith", and "Sheer Faith"? What is the difference between faith and blind faith? I thought the very definition of faith was believing in something in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, accepting it without question. How is that different than blindly believing? Are you saying faith is mainly useful to invoke miracles? The fact that you bring up skin color as some kind of meaningful difference among the human species shows that your religious stance isn't as sophisticated as the scientific one. Equality, trust, and friendship are completely attainable without religion. In fact, many Christian groups like the John Birch Society opposed the civil rights movement in the US. I am not any expert on accurate linguistic association / meaning of those words which were used in the explanation of Faith. The intensity of Faith is same in all case but Blind Faith means not even using Common Sense and Practical Help in addition to relying on Faith which is a negative aspect of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Faith gives rise to a Belief that Impossibilities can be achieved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Faith is not same as Religion but the Human Trait to believe in something. Like Faith in Scientific Attitude , Faith in God, Faith in a Religious Attitude etc. Faith in Religious Bias is dangerous just like Faith in Arms Race and Superiority. Therefore it was stated as a glaring example even the irrefutable differences can be overcome by certain Faith based Behavior rather than mathematical proof of Equivalence or Physical Exactitude. This is what was meant to be brought out. OK, since you totally missed the point: the claim for which you have not presented evidence is "Faith can also overcome differences which Logic and Science can not" Yes, where normally Science and Logic will find it wanting. If that works well and good. I told my views.
John Cuthber Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Wrong inference and deductions by you Also false accusation It's not enough to say that I'm wrong, you have to show why I was wrong. that's going to be difficult for you since you already agreed with my point.
swansont Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Faith gives rise to a Belief that Impossibilities can be achieved. So presumably those with faith will waste their time on things that are actually impossible, like perpetual motion. How is that a positive? Yes, where normally Science and Logic will find it wanting. If that works well and good. I told my views. The issue here is that you have presented your view as if it was a fact. It's not a matter of opinion — this is something that is either objectively true, or it is not. Make your case for it. What is not valid is continuing on as if it is a fact simply because you believe it. 1
Strange Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Faith gives rise to a Belief that Impossibilities can be achieved. That is one of the many problems with religion.
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 ! Moderator Note Commander,There is no section of this forum in which you are permitted to make unsubstantiated claims. If you make a statement asserting something as you have, then you will need to back it up with something. If you cannot do this, the thread will be closed.Do not respond to this modnote in this thread. Please report it or PM staff if you have any questions.
Moontanman Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) I am not any expert on accurate linguistic association / meaning of those words which were used in the explanation of Faith. The intensity of Faith is same in all case but Blind Faith means not even using Common Sense and Practical Help in addition to relying on Faith which is a negative aspect of it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Faith gives rise to a Belief that Impossibilities can be achieved. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Faith is not same as Religion but the Human Trait to believe in something. Like Faith in Scientific Attitude , Faith in God, Faith in a Religious Attitude etc. Faith in Religious Bias is dangerous just like Faith in Arms Race and Superiority. Therefore it was stated as a glaring example even the irrefutable differences can be overcome by certain Faith based Behavior rather than mathematical proof of Equivalence or Physical Exactitude. This is what was meant to be brought out. Yes, where normally Science and Logic will find it wanting. If that works well and good. I told my views. Faith without evidence is gullibility, you are welcome to your views you are not welcome to assert them as fact with no evidence.... If you think there are Religions that teach hatred between Human Beings prove that You want evidence go to Science Threads ! Do you want chapter and verse? Or are studies that show it to be true enough? http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/danger-religious-fundamentalists-just-muslisms.html BTW exactly what is scientific attitude? Edited February 21, 2015 by Moontanman
Commander Posted February 21, 2015 Author Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) Can you please explain the differences between "Strong, Unflinching FAITH", "Blind Faith", and "Sheer Faith"? What is the difference between faith and blind faith? I thought the very definition of faith was believing in something in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, accepting it without question. How is that different than blindly believing? Are you saying faith is mainly useful to invoke miracles? The fact that you bring up skin color as some kind of meaningful difference among the human species shows that your religious stance isn't as sophisticated as the scientific one. Equality, trust, and friendship are completely attainable without religion. In fact, many Christian groups like the John Birch Society opposed the civil rights movement in the US. You asked me many questions. I have answered some. Before I answer more what is your answer to the following Questions. There is no Right or wrong answer as it is subjective and so you can give your own opinion. BTW some posts / replies here have not been seen by me as it may be under my ignore pref therefore will not be responded to. Most other Qs aimed at me I have tried to answer. Q1. Do you think White is superior to Black or Equal in all sense or the other way ? Q2. Do you think White is superior to Brown or Equal in all sense or the other way ? Q3. Do you think White is superior to Yellow or Equal in all sense or the other way ? Q4. Do you think whether Science or Religion will justify how the entire America was occupied by european Settlers decimating the Local Population ? Q5. Do you think whether Science or Religion will justify how the nomadic Aryan Settlers in India are now trying to impose a Religion called Hinduism [the word coined in 1830] on all its occupants including descendants of those who preceded them ? Q6. Do you think Democracy as it is practised in the world needs to be improved because right now 1 % of the Population own 99 % of the Wealth / Resources ? Q7. Just recently the party called AAP won 95% of seats in Delhi Election standing up for Secularism. Social Justice and anti-Corruption. They revealed all their fundings transparently while no other party is willing to be transparent. They defeated the Corporate funded [black Money supported] BJP [Modi] Government so severely which has proved that Money can not always win. If this new Government manages to bring good governance and rout Corruption don't you think the entire world should adopt such a model and get rid of the Corruption existing everywhere ? Also, how Science can be used to defuse Wars, Conflicts between Sovereign Countries and protect environment ? How can Religious Fanaticism and resultant frenzy and Terrorism be eradicated ? Edited February 21, 2015 by Commander
Strange Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Q1-3 ignored as being irrelevant and meaningless. "Yellow"? Really? What century is this? Q4. Do you think whether Science or Religion will justify how the entire America was occupied by european Settlers decimating the Local Population ? I don't see how either religion or science could justify that. Q5. Do you think whether Science or Religion will justify how the nomadic Aryan Settlers in India are now trying to impose a Religion called Hinduism [the word coined in 1830] on all its occupants including descendants of those who preceded them ? Presumably one religion can justify this and others will claim it is unjustified. That is the trouble with religion: it is subjective, arbitrary and irrational. Science, obviously, has nothing to say on the matter. Other than, perhaps, investigating the truth of your claim, the extent to which it is successful (if it is happening), whether there really were "Aryan" settlers in India, whether "Aryan" means anything, etc. Q6. Do you think Democracy as it is practised in the world needs to be improved because right now 1 % of the Population own 99 % of the Wealth / Resources ? I don't know what that fact has to do with democracy. Or religion. Science could help in finding ways of improving the wealth of the majority (e.g. through education). Whether anyone wants to do that is another problem. How can Religious Fanaticism and resultant frenzy and Terrorism be eradicated ? I thought you claimed that religious attitudes are all about love and peace, not war. So you admit you were wrong, then? 1
Commander Posted February 21, 2015 Author Posted February 21, 2015 Q1-3 ignored as being irrelevant and meaningless. "Yellow"? Really? What century is this? I don't see how either religion or science could justify that. Presumably one religion can justify this and others will claim it is unjustified. That is the trouble with religion: it is subjective, arbitrary and irrational. Science, obviously, has nothing to say on the matter. Other than, perhaps, investigating the truth of your claim, the extent to which it is successful (if it is happening), whether there really were "Aryan" settlers in India, whether "Aryan" means anything, etc. I don't know what that fact has to do with democracy. Or religion. Science could help in finding ways of improving the wealth of the majority (e.g. through education). Whether anyone wants to do that is another problem. I thought you claimed that religious attitudes are all about love and peace, not war. So you admit you were wrong, then? The Right Religious Attitude is what was meant from Heading thru the posts but should not be confused with Religious Fanaticism. Religious Fanaticism has no place to be part of any good Religious Attitude [give me a break]
Moontanman Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 The Right Religious Attitude is what was meant from Heading thru the posts but should not be confused with Religious Fanaticism. Religious Fanaticism has no place to be part of any good Religious Attitude [give me a break] How do you tell the difference between the two? 1
John Cuthber Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Commander, Before you start asking questions, you need to answer the ones that others have asked. "How arrogant does someone have to be to post something that, in effect says " I don't understand something; so it must be impossible"?"
Commander Posted February 21, 2015 Author Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) How do you tell the difference between the two? The difference is perhaps the use or misuse of belonging to a Religion. The right use of the Religion is to cultivate Empathy, Understanding and Progress of mankind. The misuse is to focus on differences, argue against others and create conflicts. What matters or contributes is the Human Beings involved and the inherent traits they actually display despite teachings, grooming or Scientific Education. Edited February 21, 2015 by Commander
John Cuthber Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Commander, Before you start asking questions, you need to answer the ones that others have asked. "How arrogant does someone have to be to post something that, in effect says " I don't understand something; so it must be impossible"?"
Strange Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 The Right Religious Attitude is what was meant from Heading thru the posts but should not be confused with Religious Fanaticism. Religious Fanaticism has no place to be part of any good Religious Attitude [give me a break] This is known as the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Or: "I have the right religious attitude, you are a zealot and he is a fanatic". This belief that "I'm right and others are wrong/fanatical" is one of the less appealing characteristics of the religious. The right use of the Religion is to cultivate Empathy, Understanding and Progress of mankind. The misuse is to focus on differences, argue against others and create conflicts. This has nothing to do with religion, it is purely about behaviour. You could just as accurately say: The right way to behave is to cultivate Empathy, Understanding and Progress of mankind. The wrong way is to focus on differences, argue against others and create conflicts. No religion needed. 2
Moontanman Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 The difference is perhaps the use or misuse of belonging to a Religion. The right use of the Religion is to cultivate Empathy, Understanding and Progress of mankind. The misuse is to focus on differences, argue against others and create conflicts. What matters or contributes is the Human Beings involved and the inherent traits they actually display despite teachings, grooming or Scientific Education. Why is religion necessary to have empathy understanding and progress? 1
Commander Posted February 22, 2015 Author Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Why is religion necessary to have empathy understanding and progress? Religion is nothing but an user guide for the Human Computing and Competing Machine. In our evolved modern era it is not necessary if without it all Humans are able to coexist and lead worthwhile lives. It is easy to suggest a Religion but hard to convince fellow humans to follow it. All humans are different from one another and there will always be variations in the response pattern to any religious teaching. Religion is just another ATTEMPT BY HUMANS TO IMAGINE THEMSELVES TO BE MORE RELEVANT than all other forms of life on our Planet ! Edited February 22, 2015 by Commander
Recommended Posts