Definiton of Faith-Based Belief

[thezeus18]

For the thread “Would changing a belief have an effect on one’s actions”, it seems to me a clearer definition of faith-based belief is needed.

My thesis: A faith-based belief must be unfalsifyable. It cannot be proven, nor can any logical evidence for it or against it be found. As a result, humans choose religious beliefs on evolutionally pragmatic grounds.

Well, get busy annihilating it.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

etymonline.com/index.php?sea … hmode=none

religion
c.1200, “state of life bound by monastic vows,” also “conduct indicating a belief in a divine power,” from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion “religious community,” from L. religionem (nom. religio) “respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,” in L.L. “monastic life” (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare “go through again, read again,” from re- “again” + legere “read” (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare “to bind fast” (see rely), via notion of “place an obligation on,” or “bond between humans and gods.” Another possible origin is religiens “careful,” opposite of negligens. Meaning “particular system of faith” is recorded from c.1300.
“The equal toleration of all religions … is the same thing as atheism.” [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]
Modern sense of “recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power” is from 1535. Religious is first recorded c.1225. Transfered sense of “scrupulous, exact” is recorded from 1599.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Definition of religion
There are many definitions of religion, and most have struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and meaningless generalities on the other. Some have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions and others have tried to use experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.

Sociologists and anthropologists see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. Primitive religion was indistinguishable from the sociocultural acts where custom and ritual defined an emotional reality.

Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that relegate religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto’s “The Idea of the Holy,” formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a “feeling of absolute dependence.”

The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:

“In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture.”

Religions are not all about, and do not always require blind faith.

Are you echoing Dawkins’s pideon-hole argument fallacies, or what?

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

etymonline.com/index.php?sea … hmode=none

faith
c.1250, “duty of fulfilling one’s trust,” from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides “trust, belief,” from root of fidere “to trust,” from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885.

“Religious” “Faith” – is the act – of trusting – human – ideas – deeply…

[thezeus18]

Sorry, I meant a definition of faith-based belief. I’ll edit the title.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@thezeus18

Sorry, I meant a definition of faith-based belief. I’ll edit the title.

Cool.

I see preaching as one of the greatest violations of free speech, in that they turn a liberty – into a curse.

It would be so difficult now, to filter the “good” information from the “bad”.

Freedoms just lead to non-freedoms, it seems…

As the freedom of religion – is used to enforce, not liberate, spirituality, in America, all too often.

[spw317]

@Dan~

As the freedom of religion – is used to enforce, not liberate, spirituality, in America, all too often.

In my opinion, religion destroys spirituality all too often in America. This is not a conscious decesion but just a by product of blind believers.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@spw317

@Dan~

As the freedom of religion – is used to enforce, not liberate, spirituality, in America, all too often.

In my opinion, religion destroys spirituality all too often in America. This is not a conscious decesion but just a by product of blind believers.

Ethanol and Tobacco – are not the most toxic, popular and dumbing in human history.

Stupidity and retardation of the one thing which controls the whole body – is seen somehow as a liberation, and a freedom… an escape, and a relaxation.

The means to unconsciousness… so often…

Simials…

[d0rkyd00d]

Religions are not all about, and do not always require blind faith.

Just out of curiosity…what religions exist that are based on science?

Scientology?

[thezeus18]

So, do you agree with my definition of faith based belief? Why does no one read my threads? Just Dan~, lovable, squiggley Dan~.

[d0rkyd00d]

I agree with your definition, if that means anything. =P

But you’re preaching to the choir.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@thezeus18

So, do you agree with my definition of faith based belief? Why does no one read my threads? Just Dan~, lovable, squiggley Dan~.

Muah.

<3

The kinds of religions – whom are ‘faith based’, in that they cannot prove some things, should be modest. They should say: “This was our best guess, but we do not have solid proof.”

The problem is, that bad products can still get sold…

I made the example of tobacco, as it is NOT “good” in any way, but it can be chemically indoctrinated, into a sort of dependancy, and it usedto be legal to advertize it, etc.

This also applies to religions. The harmful religions are allowed to advertize themselves, and they do what ever they can to get more members, for more power, control, money, pleasure, satisfaction, whatever.

Once certain religious orginizations are studied and statistics are taken about how healthy or unhealthy they are, if they are unhealthy/harmful, they should be illegalized, in the same way that tobacco should be illegalized.

Ofcourse, this is merely my ideal…
A world without nihlism.
A world in which the unhealthy things are removed, and the beings all become vibrant…

[d0rkyd00d]

The kinds of religions – whom are ‘faith based’, in that they cannot prove some things, should be modest. They should say: “This was our best guess, but we do not have solid proof.”

In our world, faith based beliefs shouldn’t exist…especially not religious ones.

[thezeus18]

In our world, faith based beliefs shouldn’t exist…especially not religious ones.

The problem only resides with incorrect faith-based beliefs. Who cares about the process if the conclusions are correct? The validity of processes are determined by their conclusions.

But, in theory, there is no way to weed the bad-consequence-causing faith-based beliefs from the good-consequence ones, so the only way to get rid of the bad ones is to take them all out.

Dorky, perhaps you should start to appreciate your opponent’s points. After all, for somebody to believe them they have to have some benefit, right?[/i]