Is faith for the lazy?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Is faith for the lazy?

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

To have faith in something, you have to believe and hope that, against what seems normal, your desired end result comes to fruition.
Want to be cured of your terminal disease? Have faith.
Want to be able to pay your bill, even though your account shows you can't? Have faith.
Want to think your loved ones will make it to heaven? Have faith.
But is 'having faith' showing you're weak?
Want to be cured of your terminal disease? Why not get off your butt and seek medical treatment?
Want to be able to pay your bills? How's 'bout you get another or different job?
Want your loved ones to get to heaven? Do something about it.

There are those that both, have faith and work to better their situation. But are they doing enough?

For discussion:
Does the act of 'having faith' allow for laziness within believers, relying only on their belief in god and not their own ability to better themselves?*

*This is not to say, explicitly, that all believers are lazy (though there is an argument for that as well), but by having faith either allows for more laziness or is held by people who are more likely to be lazy.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: Is faith for the lazy?

Post #31

Post by Clownboat »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 12:06 pm
Clownboat wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 11:02 am
No need for me to get too deep into flat earthism, with someone who doesn't believe in a flat earth.
Do you not think your words through before posting them? :confused2:
If only a God were to assist you here...
Yeah, and this is me thinking my words through before posting them..

Me thinking: "Well one thing is for certain, you won't find me on a debate forum debating with others as to whether the earth is flat or not."

Now, I thought my words through, and now I am posting them.

*Clicks submit*
Are you sure you thought your words through? I ask because you failed to address the faulty reasoning in use. The same faulty reasoning that a flat earther would employ.
Instead we got a play by play about you posting a reply, again, that totally failed to address the meat of the post.

Here it is again readers:
WeAreVenom wrote:"No need for me to get too deep into Christian theology, with someone who doesn't believe in Christian theology."
Clownboat wrote:"No need for me to get too deep into flat earthism, with someone who doesn't believe in a flat earth."
Seems to me to be a defense mechanism at play in order to protect beliefs in such things as the earth being flat or as in this case, a specific religious belief. Would a true belief require such?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Is faith for the lazy?

Post #32

Post by Miles »

Wootah wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 6:34 pm
Faith is not for the lazy or the active. It's just a word that gets demonised a lot. Why is that?
Probably because it represents a bankrupt concept; faith being the excuse people give for trusting a belief when they have no good evidence of its possible truth----if they did have good evidence then faith would be unnecessary. And as such it's quite suited for the lazy who find it an easy explanation for whatever they've never bothered to consider: "No need to figure it out just take it on faith that it's correct."




.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Re: Is faith for the lazy?

Post #33

Post by otseng »

Clownboat wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 11:02 am
We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 11:41 pm No need for me to get too deep into Christian theology, with someone who doesn't believe in Christian theology.
Do you not think your words through before posting them? :confused2:
If only a God were to assist you here...
Moderator Comment

Please cease from the tit-for-tats and personal comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Is faith for the lazy?

Post #34

Post by Wootah »

Miles wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 5:21 pm
Wootah wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 6:34 pm
Faith is not for the lazy or the active. It's just a word that gets demonised a lot. Why is that?
Probably because it represents a bankrupt concept; faith being the excuse people give for trusting a belief when they have no good evidence of its possible truth----if they did have good evidence then faith would be unnecessary. And as such it's quite suited for the lazy who find it an easy explanation for whatever they've never bothered to consider: "No need to figure it out just take it on faith that it's correct."




.
I think faith means trust in modern parlance. What is the word for when you do have good evidence for trusting a belief of its possible truth?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7965
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Is faith for the lazy?

Post #35

Post by TRANSPONDER »

As I mentioned first page (but I don't mind saying it again - goes with the territory that we have to answer the same points O:) ) equivocation is involved here because words are used broadly. Normally it doesn't matter, but it can be used to make an apologetic. Take for instance 'universe'. Assuming most people know our 'island universe' is a galaxy and one of millions inside the 'expanding universe' that was started in the Big Bang and is often used as evidence of a creation or against it :D Because we can explain where the BB event came from (1). So the Creationists want to know where the 'stuff' came from that the BB event was made from and THAT (the wider cosmos of 'stuff' (primal matter) is the 'Universe' (Cosmos) under discussion, not Our universe, which may be one of many.

Similarly, 'Theory' is often equivocated. Colloquially it means an idea, or a suggestion or a belief. Correctly this is 'hypothesis' at best and such ideas need testing and verification before they become a scientific Theory. As we know, Theists equivocate to say that 'evolution is only a nypothesis, suggestion or belief'. It is not it is a scientific theory, tested, and verified.

Faith, trust and belief are pretty much interchangeable, and it wouldn't matter other than the equivocation fallacy which equates belief with good evidence and reasons with a belief without good evidence and reasons. Then equivocation being that they are not the same and not equally justified. Evolution is not a Faith and God is.

"You have faith that your car will start". Because we know what makes a car work. We do not have to have faith that an invisible being may or may not make the engine go. Belief on knowledge is not to be equivocated with Faith without knowledge.

I know that God, Jesus and the Bible are presented as being supported by evidence, but scientifically they are not. Really. Just as the Flat earth, alien ancient technology and Atlantis are not supported by the evidence. Really.

(1) Aside that it seems that a "Foom" and Expansion is not not cosmological thought today, but a total expansion of everything everywhere.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Is faith for the lazy?

Post #36

Post by Miles »

Wootah wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 7:22 am
Miles wrote: Tue May 17, 2022 5:21 pm
Wootah wrote: Sun May 08, 2022 6:34 pm
Faith is not for the lazy or the active. It's just a word that gets demonised a lot. Why is that?
Probably because it represents a bankrupt concept; faith being the excuse people give for trusting a belief when they have no good evidence of its possible truth----if they did have good evidence then faith would be unnecessary. And as such it's quite suited for the lazy who find it an easy explanation for whatever they've never bothered to consider: "No need to figure it out just take it on faith that it's correct."




.
I think faith means trust in modern parlance.
Yes, a trust in a belief when there is no good evidence of its possible truth.

What is the word for when you do have good evidence for trusting a belief of its possible truth?
"Trust."

.

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7965
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Is faith for the lazy?

Post #37

Post by TRANSPONDER »

O:) As is often the case with these semantic matters, in normal concourse, it doesn't matter if distinctions in synonyms like, Trust, Faith or belief, are blurred. It is only when they are equivocated in order to make out that Belief on the basis of verified evidence and Faith without any good evidence and even in despite of it are the same, that we have to step in and straighten things out. And it can't always be done by reference to dictionary definitions. :D Because dictionaries print various common usages, not necessarily scientifically accurate or logically valid descriptions.

The Rule here (which I just wrote) is 'meanings before definitions'. You do not use the dictionary definition to determine what the word means, but you have to define the way (meaning) that you are using the word, whether Faith, Trust or belief.

cue, the Humpty fallacy. This is where Humpty tells Alice "Words mean what I want them to mean". I don't think that Dodgson was being a smart Alec, but knew that this is illogical. Yes, you can use words any way you want, but unless you give people a translation, they will not understand you. This was what I had to explain to a particularly cheeky apologist (1) when he argued that God exists if he used the definition of 'something of supreme importance', and he rejected common usage of the terms as irrelevant if he didn't use it that way. And many other things he did :roll: but were every one to be written here, this post would be as endless as infinite regression.

(1) "an Agnostic" which being translated means "Right winger who no longer believes in God but still hates atheists because they are Liberals." A phenomenon that is almost unknown outside of America.

Post Reply