Is personal faith a debatable topic?

If you go back to my OP, you would see that this thread is not about aspects of faith that cannot be disproven, but rather, aspects that can (and have been) disproven. You canb happily believe that the earth is only 7 ays old or that it was flooded, but at some point you have to accept that you are wrong because we can prove otherwise. Just like ancient egyptians took it on faith that Ra carried the sun accross the sky in a chariot, evidence proved otherwise.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

I am discussing (as per the OP) how one "loses" (or is convinced away from) faith based conclusions. In the case of traffic lights a few painful experiences would be experiential reason to lose ones assumptions. No assumptions (such as those involved in crossing roads) are based on evidence so common that one stops even thinking of it as evidence.Your comparison is unjustifiable.

quote:

---

Your comparison is unjustifiable.

---

It is based on my definition of faith not yours. it is justified by me. and that is who my faith is relevant to.that being true, how do you think it will change?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This is almost exactly what I was wondering: is it acceptable in any instance (as a non-believer) to question, debate or be critical of, a religious person's faith. This is the position I think I was dealing with in regards to the aforementioned individual. I just want the people who are in my sons life to not be fucking stupid. To not be ignorant. I have absolutely NO qualms with them going to church for the togetherness or the joy it brings them: it does some people some good. However, if it means pushing mythical tales as truth: I have a very BIG problem with that. That is not what I want to do. I want more to discuss, not argue and everytime she felt as though I was tearing down her faith, she shut down and it got "tense" (mainly because my ex was there. She's a hot-headed italian broad). I've sent her a thunderf00t video where he thoroughly debunks the whole of anything Hovind. She hasn't responded. Oh no, she happily touted Pascal's Wager. I brought up what Dawkins said when asked "what if you're wrong" and told her that if she lived in Norway or Sweden around the turn of the millenia, she would believe in Odin. Her response? "No, jesus would have found me". I went on to as about Native Americans and why they had no idea who jesus was. She changed the subject. That is a mighty fine idea. i may have my ex take one too. I was going to purchase a few copies of The Greatest Show on Earth and hand them out anyways. It made sense just fine.

---

quote:

---

If you go back to my OP, you would see that this thread is not about aspects of faith that cannot be disproved, but rather, aspects that can (and have been) disproved. You can happily believe that the earth is only 7 days old or that it was flooded, but at some point you have to accept that you are wrong because we can prove otherwise. Just like ancient Egyptians took it on faith that Ra carried the sun across the sky in a chariot, evidence proved otherwise.

---

yes. But given the nature of the sources, the sources have always been obscured or misrepresentations all based on SOME truth. even RA was formed from the proof of the suns journey.But knowing that, keep what is relevant, and ignore what is not.You changed the lead topic after i had already read it..not sure what changed. sorry if i fell of it somehow...

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This thread isn't about your personal definition of faith. It is about what would convince those of faith (i.e. you) away from their beliefs.I have told you how "faith" in lax road crossing procedures could be broken by evidential experience. So unless you can spell out the comparable evidential experience that would lead you away from your belief in an ethereal being your "green light" comparison is blatantly misplaced and unjustified. That is my question to you.

What sources are you talking about? It was a mythical story based on an observation that they had no further way to provide themselves with evidences to say otherwise. think "ra of the gaps". I've changed nothing in the OP. You just have a hard time addressing topics without inserting your own crazy.

---

Not exactly. What I wanted to address was how to discuss faith based topics with believers when those topics can (and/or have been) proven to be wrong empirically. I am in no way trying to disprove or even discuss, say, the trinity or that jesus is the son of god, oranything else in that category.Your examples are on point, I just wanted to clarify that bit.

---

quote:

---

It was a mythical story based on an observation

---

Like i said: SOME fact.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

quote:

---

This thread isn't about your personal definition of faith. It is about what would convince those of faith (i.e. you) away from their beliefs.

---

Exactly. But the definition of faith is not the same per individual. So i told you mine and what it would take.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi hooah, The problem is that nothing that is accepted by faith can be proven to be wrong.As tesla has pointed out faith is personal and is affected by nothing not even what you call facts.If you love your woman and want to spend the rest of your life living with her in a happy life you need to back off. Especially if she is sincere with her faith. You will not convince her that her faith is misplaced if she truly has faith in God.I deal with these situations on a daily basis and have seen many separations because one party tried to change the other.Now I got a question. Is she happy in Church, studying the Bible, and helping others? If she works in a retirement home she sees death quite often and has to deal with the emotions of that aspect of life. Her faith tells her they are in a better place which helps her accept death. So if it keeps her happy and a joyful person what is the harm.Especially if it is only a myth anyway.You can teach the boy science later and if he makes up his mind to believe as you do then ok but if he believes her way that should be ok to. But from your comments that is unacceptable.Especially if it is only a myth anyway.Your problem is you want to take away her faith because you know she is wrong.Are you 100% sure you are right?Now let me ask you another question about your faith.The universe did not exist at T=0.Do you believe the universe existed at T=10^-43?Why? Where did it come from? There was no observer, and it can not be reproduced. Therefore Faith is required.I believe God created the universe in the beginning. Faith is required.When a person has a personal faith in something no amount of evidence will destroy that faith.If you don't want to rock the boat, you sit still in the boat.IOW talk about anything but religion.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hey ICANT. Try something for me: read what I type. I'm not here looking for personal advice. Had you read anything I typed, you would have realized that the person in my OP isn't my old lady, but her friend. Second, she is my EX-girlfriend. I'm pretty sure I said that a few times. What I call facts, eh? So you are happily ignorant as well.I won't respond to anything else you've written as it addresses nothing in my OP. If you continue in this vein, I will not respond to you.

---

I suppose a lot of the regular faithful have this kind of attitude and it seems to be a comfort thing. They've been brought up to believe in particular certainties, and even if they have to use science in certain aspects of their life (and obviously benefit from it), they still can't abandon their faith. It's like trying to make a child give up their favourite doll or blanket. Do you mean, when we accept scientific facts that we learn without seeing the evidence for ourselves? That's a good point. And I can see how people could get confused if they live in a community where fact and fiction are told alongside each other, without ever seeing the evidence for the things that are fact. How do they know the difference between the fact and the fiction? However, it's very hard for me to grasp how people really could be confused in that way, because there must be such a massive educational and cultural gap between us. I have to be cynical and think that deep down most of them really know the difference, but that they hold on to the stories of faith because of the comfort thing and also a loyalty to family and community.I suppose there's no easy answer. The best bet is to give the person in question the seeds to start gradually thinking for themselves. You can lead a horse to water...

No. I meant accepting myths that can be proven wrong via scientific fact. I don't want to go into why we accept scientific laws, as laypeople, without seeing the results firsthand. I didn't want this to turn into a thread about "how do I convince this person", but rather, how it should be done in general or should it be done. I only used the example I used as an...example. Nothing more.

---

You made a stupid and unjustifiable conflation between refutable assumptions borne of common experience (i.e. lax road crossing procedures) and personal faith. Where did you tell us? What evidence would it take to overcome your faith?