Faith is a Synonym for Batshit Loco

Faith is belief without evidence.

A (combined) definition for a delusional disorder is:

“A fixed false belief held without and or against evidence.”

Considering the nature of religious beliefs it’s pretty obvious to anyone not suffering from cognitive bias that this is essentially the same bloody thing and ‘revealed knowledge’ or ‘personal experience’ ain’t going to cut it as evidence.

Advertisements

10 responses to “Faith is a Synonym for Batshit Loco

  1. Come on! Give me specifics.
    I have a hard time with these kind of things.
    I am not as much concerned with your statement, but with the fact that it is not proven, based on your say so.
    Please tell me more. Why are believers to be classified as having a delusional dissorder.
    Don’t assume I know.
    Please use real facts (not Dawkins and Hitchens, unless thier facts are supported and cited).
    If you are going to make such claims, you are going to spark conversation. Good on ya!

    • The definition of delusion that I use is one combined from several medical/psychology texts. Some make provision for cultural inculcation but that’s such an obvious case of special pleading as to not be worth mentioning.

      Faith = (belief – evidence)
      The definition of delusion is as I have cited. The one is synonymous with the other since the meaning is the same.

    • We are using faith purely in its religious context, a dictionary will give you every possible meaning of a term, not the one that is necessarily relevant. Faith in the religious context is belief without evidence. Covered. If you check the medical definitions of a delusion, you will find that this meets the terms laid out in the original post.

      BBT is not dependent on DM and there is evidence of DM as there is also evidence for Black Holes. If faith is belief without evidence then where there is evidence it is not a matter of faith. QED.

  2. faith/fāTH/

    Noun:

    1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
    2.Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

    de·lu·sion/diˈlo͞oZHən/

    Noun:

    1.An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality,…
    2.The action of deluding someone or the state of being deluded: “what a capacity television has for delusion”.

    This is what I am asking you to do! I come to bloggs as a discipline to strenghthen my thinking (please note, not my spelling!).

    I take issue with the first defination. Google definitions is hardly the be all and end all.

    Websters says:

    Definition of FAITH

    1

    a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one’s promises (2): sincerity of intentions

    2

    a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
    b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

    3

    : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs

    Google combines a and b under 2. To make it seem as if faith in God is the only way we believe in something which there is no proof.
    If I am not mistaken, black holes, and dark matter (of which the Big Bang Theory is dependent), must also be taken on faith.
    This is a good documentary to explain this: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/is-everything-we-know-about-the-universe-wrong/

  3. You put me in my place a bit there. You are right Faith is not Faith if it is entirely proven. WHich is why Jesus told thomas that the folks who have believed without seeing will be blessed.
    I suppose what I am concerned with is the idea that believers are somehow ignorant for believing in something they have not yet seen.
    This is why I brought up the thing about blackholes and dark matter is becuase faith is associated with proof not evidence. It is believing in soemthing which there is no proof. There is evidence for Jesus and his resurection as per the account of eye witnesses such as the apostle John. But many would argue there is no proof.
    It is the same with Black holes and Dark Matter, there is evidence, yes but as of yet, tangible proof, the kind you can touch and feel does not exist. And so to believe these takes faith in those who have discovered the evidence and those who have brought us the theories.
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090412230811AAFspGt

    • Interestingly the very existence of Jesus is also a matter of faith. There’s no historical evidence for his existence. Ironically this is also – substantially – the fault of early Christians who interpolated many old texts. Not that they constituted evidence anyway in and of themselves, but it’s distinctly unhelpful.

      Two differences with the scientific part. People are actively searching for evidence and the existence of these is not a matter of faith. Firstly because of the evidence, secondly because further evidence is sought and thirdly because should there turn out to be issues or these things be proven wrong, science will happily move on.

      Black holes can be inferred from their effects on their surroundings and are, essentially, proven now.

      Dark Matter is a ‘holding’ term. We know there’s missing mass and there are many candidates. Its effect and presence – similarly to black holes – has been observed. It’s just working out precisely what it IS that’s still ongoing.

    • Which I find fascinating since there is zero evidence for his existence. I could go into long detail about the issues with these sources but the universal one is that none of them are contemporaneous to the period. Jesus’ existence seems to be taken for granted purely because of the historical Christianity of many historians. When you actually look at the data there’s little or nothing to suggest the existence of a real person, let alone a god-man.

  4. This is false. Please read the post I gave earlier. Both Tacitus and Josephus were contemporaneous to that period, writing less that fifty years after the events to which they describe. Neither were Christians.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

    Also please note this chart to see how other works and thinkers stand up as far as contemporaneous evidence against the Bible.
    http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

    I must admit that my views on blackholes and darkmatter may be false, as I am not a scientist. My views come from the link I listed at the begining of this arguement as well as a book I read, to which I cannot remember the name. It would be good for me to know where you get your information. Please Cite so I can read it myself.
    Thanks

    • Afraid not, you MIGHT argue Josephus to be contemporaneous since he was born in the year Jesus allegedly died, but was hardly writing during the period when Jesus is claimed to have lived. Plus the terrible problems with interpolation down to Eusebius. Different literary lineages of Josephus’ writings do not contain the Jesus passages at all.

      Tacitus wasn’t born until 56 CE and has similar interpolation issues as well as being contradicted by his own later writings. There are a lot more issues but the simple matter of being non-contemporaneous is enough of a hurdle.

      You can find articles and links to the science on Wiki (don’t take it as it is, follow the citations), BBC News sites, Nature etc.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s