Is faith allways bad?

No.

I don't know whether Fate is bad all ways. Maybe some ways, but not all.

Edited by Dayvenkirq - October 17 2015 at 20:15

condor wrote: Although most examples of faith seem suspicious, can you not have faith in your calculations? If we need to have evidence for everything, we will need to have simulations for myriads of things to the extent it will become impractical.

Having an opinion about the reliability of an authority is not faith. No you cannot have faith in your calculations (reasoned thought processes) or they are no longer that.

No, it isn't always bad.

presdoug wrote: No, it isn't always bad.  If faith gives someone a sense of hope in their lives, well, I think it is a good thing, regardless of whether or not the source of that faith can be proven.  I don't have a personal, religious faith, but I have friends that do, and if it helps them, well, so be it!

Although I'm standing by my post in that I don't consider faith to be a legitimate part of any reasoning process as the OP was pointing toward, I agree that it may be so well entrenched in some people that they would be ill-advised to part from their faith for the good of their own psychological health.

Edited by HackettFan - October 18 2015 at 18:48

Sean Trane wrote: when it comes to religion, of course it is.... since faith implies believing without (or very little) discussions. That's why it's called blind faith.. if you (the people in general) opened your eyes, you'd "know" that there is no god/creator and that the obligation to adore it is a control ploy for the masses.   Of course for other purposes or matters, the word faith is used in debates (legal or not) about innocence (good faith) or trying to escape responsibility (bad faith)

I am not going to allow these comments to go unchallenged.

People have been discussing faith and belief since the dawn of man. There has been a great deal of discussion about faith. It is probably the most discussed subject in history. Don't allow your arrogance to descend into ignorance.

Nobody "knows" whether or not, definitively, there is, or is not, a creator/God. That is where faith comes in. You either believe in this, or you do not. Both, by the way, are, themselves, belief systems (realises Mr Laz runs the risk of a further Dean intervention.... )

The obligation, as you put it, to adore is a characteristic of a clerical state. We see this in certain Muslim countries in the present day, and Europe saw it in many countries under both Christendom, and other regimes. The majority of Christians and Jews would, rightly, reject such regimes in these more enlightened times. I suspect that many Muslims would, as well, if only they felt able to do so. However, Hugues, you must, surely, be aware that such States, who most certainly do employ control ploys for the masses, are an entirely different thing from faith. Faith tends to be a deeply personal thing, as opposed to control, which, by its very nature, looks to many people.

lazland wrote: I am not going to allow these comments to go unchallenged. >>   Please do so... even if time is unfortunately counted on this Monday People have been discussing faith and belief since the dawn of man. There has been a great deal of discussion about faith. It is probably the most discussed subject in history. Don't allow your arrogance to descend into ignorance   My arrogance is your ignorance maybe, because I'm not arrogant... simply stating what I know Throughout the ages, people discussing their faith is due to the will to find out is others are as prisoners of the religious carcan (you can read that as "straightjacket" if you wish)... and denouncing those who don't is revenge (or jealousy) for those that are not in the same "jail" as they are.     Nobody "knows" whether or not, definitively, there is, or is not, a creator/God. That is where faith comes in. You either believe in this, or you do not. Both, by the way, are, themselves, belief systems (realises Mr Laz runs the risk of a further Dean intervention....   Let me correct this bolded word and change it into "ignorance and doubts"... and no, not believing is not a belief, since our knowledge is based on facts (as Dean pointed out recently). though I understand this concept might be difficult to grasp (as a concept) for religious people, but atheist simply "don't believe". And that's what sets us free - and renders the believers seeting of jealousy and wanting revenge.     The obligation, as you put it, to adore is a characteristic of a clerical state. We see this in certain Muslim countries in the present day, and Europe saw it in many countries under both Christendom, and other regimes. The majority of Christians and Jews would, rightly, reject such regimes in these more enlightened times. I suspect that many Muslims would, as well, if only they felt able to do so. However, Hugues, you must, surely, be aware that such States, who most certainly do employ control ploys for the masses, are an entirely different thing from faith. Faith tends to be a deeply personal thing, as opposed to control, which, by its very nature, looks to many people.   don't get me wrong, I never said that the "atheist states" don't try to control the masses... they're not doing any better in this regards, maybe even worse (North Korea, for ex)   BTW; Islam nowadays is "enjoying" its middle-age period (today is comparable to the XIII to XVth century for Christians) and simply doing its inquisitions stage

Sean Trane wrote: Dean wrote: Guldbamsen wrote: Nope....as long as people don't use it as an excuse for learning new things. Erm... as long a people don't use it as an excuse for not learning new things. ...and can the OP or an Admin fix the tread title? Bad spelling is always bad.

Most of the time, although I suppose it has its moments. I remember not hating "Hand to Mouth" for instance, and "I Want Your Sex" is kinda fun in a time-capsule cheesy sort of way. Haven't heard the whole thing since...well...the 80's.

No....I don't think so, but then it depends on how much 'faith' and in what.