Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Having once believed that my home was beleaguered by demons, and having consulted with priests to vanquish them, I have already met your challenge. Do you want to know how the demons were vanquished in the end? They were destroyed by doubt, by nonbelief. They disappeared in the light of skepticism, along with the gods they supposedly tremble at.
You continue to prove my point: you can't simply "choose to believe." Since you've already conceded that, more or less, it's worthwhile moving on to what evidence you have to present.
Not only can I tell you that, but I've already shown you that. You couldn't choose to believe the unicorn at will. You've already demonstrated my point.
Then you could choose tomorrow to not believe in Jesus and to sincerely believe in the doctrines of Islam? The day after you could choose to believe in Judaism? No, you couldn't.
What evidence?
Why would you think there were demons in your home? Were you insane at the time? Do you have a history in believing that things you don't believe exist are invading your home? If there were no demons, then clergymen could do no good. If there were demons and you learned to co-exist with them it's because you became a kindred spirit.
I was a believer at the time. I was also a teenager and my parents were very superstitious then. Everything that went wrong was attributed to a demon. Eventually, I "saw" them everywhere; they were behind everything. You cannot imagine the fear that accompanies that; waking up from a nightmare and being terrified of that shadow on the wall - a demon surely!
But then you didn't "choose to believe" at will. You believed because you were convinced by the evidence! That's the point! You continue to demonstrate my point, and yet you're oblivious to it.
As I recall, you said "faith," which is not evidence at all.
It's clear that you don't.
You are conflating "faith" with trust. I trust the scientist because she has an established track record of expertise in the field in which she is working. She has obtained credentials that give me confidence in her ability to conduct research, and her work has been reviewed by peers who have similar credentials validating their expertise. In other words, my trust is not based on faith at all.
We are talking about faith in the religious sense, not faith in the sense of mere confidence or trust. In the religious sense, faith means believing irrespective of how well grounded the belief is, and maintaining belief even if the preponderance of evidence stands opposed to that belief.
I already answered this question. By examining their credentials, which provides evidence of their expertise in the area for which they studied. By examining whether their work was reviewed by their peers. By considering what their critics have to say, etc.
I don't need to know them personally. All I have been asked to evaluate is their authority as a scientist, which I can do by considering the above.
I'm sure that's what religionists like to tell themselves.
Yes, but not based on faith. I don't hand some stranger a drill and mirror and ask them to do dentistry. I go to a dentist.
There is a reason you go to a doctor for medical advice and not an accountant. They have expertise in medicine, as evidenced by their credentials and board registration.
I don't know for certain, if by "for certain" you mean "beyond the shadow of a doubt," or absolutely certain. But I don't need to be absolutely certain. There are few things, if any, that I can know to that extreme degree of certitude.
That's why the peer review process exists. That's why science welcomes criticism, whereas religion deplores it.
I'm sure that's what religionists like to tell themselves.
Wow, you really had to stretch that to try to squeeze science in.
In fact, this would make anything one deems important a "religion." But notice the definitions you omitted (also from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary):Merriam-Webster said:
Yes, and that confidence is not like faith because it is based on the dentist's expertise in dentistry. If I saw that the dentist had a degree from Clown College on his wall, my confidence in his abilities as a dentist would decrease substantially.
And that trust is again based on something, not on faith. Although I trust my doctor, given her demonstrable expertise, I recognise that she is still a fallible human being, meaning we both acknowledge that errors can happen. However, again, given her demonstrable expertise, she is less likely to make errors in medical decision-making than someone lacking her qualifications, which is why I seek medical advice from her, and not an accountant or lawyer.
What reasons do you have that warrant accepting such claims as absolutely certain?
No one claimed otherwise. But it is better than what religion has.
Wow, you really had to stretch that to try to squeeze science in.
Then you realise that science doesn't fit under the definition.
I already defined faith earlier:
I also highlighted ways in which my trust in the dentist was not like faith:
As noted, my confidence in the dentist's abilities is based on their expertise, as evidenced by their credentials and board certification, which means that their knowledge and skills have been assessed and deemed sufficient to practice dentistry.
Nor do I need to know everything about her life. What an absurd demand! All I need to do know is whether she is competent to practice medicine, and I do know that because her expertise has been demonstrated.
Why would that warrant being absolutely certain about such claims?
Are you claiming that religion has something similar to peer review?
Historically, what happened to those who dared to challenge dogma?
