[Hdier]

Actually, it's Daemon (sorry; couldn't resist the correction).

However, one thing that you didn't recognize in your post is that religion can't be proved; science. Also, where could a diety come from, scientifically speaking? (this is a question to everyone)

[Nomad]

Bang on. Very good. Again, as stated before, I find it interesting that this atheist, non atheist debate always seems to operate within an Abrahamic religious context. As for the Golden Compass thing, the writer is an atheist, and has stated publicly it is an anti Christian work. This is far more obvious in the books, but even his statement is open to question. No spoilers, but the series shows an arc of faith, and does not seem to deny deity, but it is virulently anti religious authority. I see it as a profoundly spiritual work, All this has been toned down in the movie in order to soften protests by religious objectors.

-Nomad

[rwyatt365]

	Originally Posted by Hdier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, it's Daemon (sorry; couldn't resist the correction). However, one thing that you didn't recognize in your post is that religion can't be proved; science. Also, where could a diety come from, scientifically speaking? (this is a question to everyone)

...and that's my point exactly, that religion is faith-based and cannot be proven. It's existence does not depend on proof so, to speak of proof in a religious context is irrelevant.

And, as to where any diety might come from...religions generally don't give that explanation - the diety simply is, and always was. Science might try to disclaim a religion by asking that question, but again, that argument is meaningless in the context of religion - which is faith.





rwyatt365 added to this post, 5 minutes and 37 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Nomad To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bang on. Very good. Again, as stated before, I find it interesting that this atheist, non atheist debate always seems to operate within an Abrahamic religious context. As for the Golden Compass thing, the writer is an atheist, and has stated publicly it is an anti Christian work. This is far more obvious in the books, but even his statement is open to question. No spoilers, but the series shows an arc of faith, and does not seem to deny deity, but it is virulently anti religious authority. I see it as a profoundly spiritual work, All this has been toned down in the movie in order to soften protests by religious objectors. -Nomad

I was unaware of the books, so I saw the movie with zero background (I had some free movie passes and it was either "The Golden Compass", or "Hitman"! I chose fantasy over foolishness
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)! I caught the anti-authority tone of the movie and didn't specifically think of it as against religious authority per-se, more about authoritarian regimes in general. I guess they did a good job of hiding the author's intent because I saw little spirituality in it at all - or at least, not enough to get riled up about.

[blueback]

Originally Posted by Tarrick To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Both sides make leaps of faith at one point or another. We religious people are simply honest about it. Atheists believe everything either always was or spawned from nothing, and the rest of us believe God was involved in the process. And religion does not "inhibit" scientific thought. Rather it provides explanations to inexplicable things, like how bees having been making perfect hexagons in their hives for some millions of years and how baby kangaroos know to head for the pouch as soon as their born.

Hey, Tarrick, you're back. Of course, you're contributing just as much as you always do.

One of the simplest errors in judgement that children grow out of is projecting their own values onto other people. You, apparently, haven't grown out of that. You've ignored the lengthy posts in which I've laid out a logical framework which supports my conclusions and insted assume that I must be making leaps of faith just like you. Go back, reread them, and answer each point that you can find a problem with.

You can't simplify the world into atheists and monotheists. You are leaving out agnostics, polytheists, pagans, those who follow philosophies that aren't religion, etc.

And, about your second "point". . .wow. You managed to contradict yourself in only 22 words and then went on to use even more. By saying that bees building hexagons is "inexplicable" you are inhibiting science, and by extension rational thought. Did you know that there are birds that build nests out of twigs? Some of their nests are actually quite structurally complex, do you find that "inexplicable" too? Ants are known to dig networks of tunnels that are quite practical, and termites can build structures that act as natural air conditioners. All these have scientific explanations which are available for you to study, if you cared too. But, if you'd rather assume they are "inexplicable" and say that God-did-it then go ahead, but at least do it with enough honesty to not claim you're doing the opposite.

[Gavisi]

	Originally Posted by Tarrick To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Both sides make leaps of faith at one point or another. We religious people are simply honest about it. Atheists believe everything either always was or spawned from nothing, and the rest of us believe God was involved in the process.

I am willing to admit that I don't know what started the universe. But I'll also say that no one else does either.

	Originally Posted by Tarrick To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And religion does not "inhibit" scientific thought. Rather it provides explanations to inexplicable things, like how bees having been making perfect hexagons in their hives for some millions of years and how baby kangaroos know to head for the pouch as soon as their born.

Why use religion's explanations when you could make up your own? Whether it's Christianity saying that God created humans or me saying that Flying Purple Space Goats created all animal life, both explanations are just as valid.

[Antares]

	By The Way, if you were wondering, Camelopardalis, you can click on the 'Quote' button in the bottom left-hand corner of the post to make it look like this:

Ah, I've done this before, but I'm more used to manually quoting now. As for the bit about lack of information, if you frequent some other forums, you will discover that they are quite hostile upon the knowledge of your lack lack of it. Some people are nowhere as civil as those I find here.





Camelopardalis added to this post, 6 minutes and 45 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Gavisi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why use religion's explanations when you could make up your own? Whether it's Christianity saying that God created humans or me saying that Flying Purple Space Goats created all animal life, both explanations are just as valid.

I like to think that our ancestors were being quite serious when they started the religion. It's of course more plausible that a wise old man with flowing white beard created us all than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. After all, a man like that is the epitome of wisdom. I find the Invisible Pink Unicorn absurd and immature, and I think many believers will agree. Just to clear everything up, I'm an atheist.





Camelopardalis added to this post, 6 minutes and 21 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Hdier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually, it's Daemon (sorry; couldn't resist the correction). However, one thing that you didn't recognize in your post is that religion can't be proved; science. Also, where could a diety come from, scientifically speaking? (this is a question to everyone)

Based on what I know of science, it does not support the supernatural, so I'd say that under science a deity can't exist. However, I'm willing to accept the possibility (extremely slim, at that) that a deity might have created all the sciences. In that case, laws of science dont apply to him. Laws of Physics break down in front of him, like they do in singularities or a speed past light (hm... possible parallels or connections?).

[banzai]

As far as I understand it, science neither supports or confutes the supernatural, it's just null since there is no information to determine anything either way.

Is this really such a hard concept to grasp? I just don't see how anyone can argue either way when the bottom line is that neither side has any real evidence. To me, that is the real mystery!

[blueback]

Grayscale, you are correct. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural specifically because there is no evidence one way or another.

However, that's not the problem.

The problem is when irrational people interpret a lack of disconfirming evidence that something exists as proof that it does exist.

If the believers just left it at:
"Noone can say for sure. I'm going to base my life on it. You can join me if you want."
there would never be any issue. However, believers don't leave it at that. Instead they say:
"I know for sure. Yes I have proof. No, I can't show you the proof, you have to experience it for yourself. Just stop doubting me and do what I say. If you don't you will suffer for all eternity. And stop doing all those things I told you not to do. And, while you're at it, give me some money. Yes, God told me to tell you to give me money. Stop thinking about it you dirty sinner and just do what God says. You don't want to do what God says? Then you are responsible for everything that is bad in the world."

Believers just can't leave other people alone. The simple fact that their belief is unquestionable impells them to seek other people who agree with themselves. After all, if their belief is so obvious to themselves, then it should be obvious to anyone else who hears it, right?

If I told you that you were going to win the lottery next month would you believe me? You might ask for proof, but I would simply tell you that the lottery comission doesn't release the results that early so there is no proof. If you told me that you weren't going to spend money you don't have yet I would tell you that I KNOW you will win, and since you can't prove you won't win, you should take it on faith. After all, if you can't prove something doesn't exist, that proves that faith in it still makes perfect sense.

[banzai]

Or that the lack of confirming evidence as proof that it doesn't, to be fair. I agree with what you're saying about believers, but atheists often make inverse suggestions that believe in God is invalid, which, to me, is just as bad (even if not as lengthy) a thing to say as your example. Some people take it too far and I do not think that is a behavior native to either viewpoint.

The problem is that there aren't enough people who understand that there is no way to know either way. I don't see many theists or atheists making that admission, there just happens to be more of the former.

[Hdier]

Blueback: How many people have you met that actually do that? Not one person I have met would try to do that, though I admit that I don't get out much, to use extreme understatement. However, I know that I would never try to impose my beliefs on someone else, because although I partially believe that you will go to Hell if you don't believe in Jesus, I still believe that it should be your own choice weather or not to believe it. Otherwise, why would God have allowed us to have free will?

[ambient]

The atheist claims to be intellectually superior.
The Christian claims to be morally superior.
Neither side can agree on what the argument is truly about, so each repeat the same points, but in a louder voice.
See a pattern here?

[Antares]

Originally Posted by Hdier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Blueback: How many people have you met that actually do that? Not one person I have met would try to do that, though I admit that I don't get out much, to use extreme understatement. However, I know that I would never try to impose my beliefs on someone else, because although I partially believe that you will go to Hell if you don't believe in Jesus, I still believe that it should be your own choice weather or not to believe it. Otherwise, why would God have allowed us to have free will?

I've met theists like that though. Maybe not so direct or demanding. I do agree that they're not entirely logical and that they only preach 'have faith' and they offer no logical explanations (or at least, to me it didn't sound logical). One tried force that idea on me by repeating endlessly: Life IS the evidence of God since life so complex cannot start from random chance. (But the mathematics of Chaos theory supports random chance and chaos) While life CAN be the evidence of God, life can also be the evidence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the FSM. Just because they're much more absurd (more like a parody) than the idea of God, his idea generally applies to all three of them. Life can be the evidence of ANYTHING. God, random chance, unicorns, spaghetti alike. I've had many try to convert me and scare me into it by telling me I'll go to hell (If I'm essentially a good and fair person, is it just for God to condemn me to hell? Is God omni benevolent if he does?). Theists are not entirely passive as previously stated. Perhaps you're one of the more decent ones who doesn't try to influence/convince/scare others into sharing your belief, but trust me, they exist.

[TruorTupnm]

Most atheists that I have bumped into don't necessarily believe that theists are anti-science. They mostly just believe that they are crazy, stupid, or evil. I've bumped into atheists and theists, some who were pro-science, some who were anti-science. But mayhaps towards general trends, I would just go with the supposition that most atheists have faith that most theists are anti-science to various degrees. For myself, I am paranoid about everything unless I have done all of my own research on everything. Reading some article about some great discovery, I would murmur, "Hm! Cool! But wait! It could all be a hoax!" Same reaction towards religions. Yay for the people who thought some stuff up towards the beginning of human thought. They probably got some great results out of their confident-sounding conclusions!

Towards that The Golden Compass movie, no, I didn't see much promoting atheism or bashing theism. Towards the books, well, I read them a while ago and am attempting to remember. Was there a god in there, but some people were just trying to off him? Sounds like it promotes theism, to myself. "Look! There's a god! Let's get him, 'cuz he's creepy!"

[Antares]

I've actually met theists who would like nothing more than to see the merging of science and religion. The Christians I know aren't anti-science. Not sure about others. The only anti-science Christian I know is my cousin. "How can you believe such crap as evolution?" Says he. I dunno... Maybe it makes sense in my ultra eccentric and haywire logic?

[rwyatt365]

[COLOR=black]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Grayscale, you are correct. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural specifically because there is no evidence one way or another.

[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]The first definition that I find for "supernatural" is simply something that cannot be explained by natural law, or phenomena. Given that, science cannot have anything to say about a (so-called) supernatural event except that it is unexplained, just as you say blueback.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]

	Believers just can't leave other people alone. The simple fact that their belief is unquestionable impells them to seek other people who agree with themselves. After all, if their belief is so obvious to themselves, then it should be obvious to anyone else who hears it, right?

[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]Christians are mandated to "spread the Gospel" and so feel compelled to force everyone to adhere to the Christian paradigm – no other way is possible in their eyes. It's either Christianity, or Hell. I don't know that other religions have that same prerogative. [/COLOR]

[COLOR=black]

	Originally Posted by Grayscale To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The problem is that there aren't enough people who understand that there is no way to know either way. I don't see many theists or atheists making that admission, there just happens to be more of the former.

[/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]It seems simple enough to me that there is a "grey area" where both science and religion fall short, into the "unexplained", where each individual has to determine how to reconcile that with their own world-view. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]

Originally Posted by Hdier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Blueback: How many people have you met that actually do that? Not one person I have met would try to do that, though I admit that I don't get out much, to use extreme understatement. However, I know that I would never try to impose my beliefs on someone else, because although I partially believe that you will go to Hell if you don't believe in Jesus, I still believe that it should be your own choice weather or not to believe it. Otherwise, why would God have allowed us to have free will?

[/COLOR]
[FONT=Verdana]If you have not met anyone like that Hdier, you are fortunate – I have, even within my own family. There are many people that I know personally that have no problem with trampling over the beliefs of anyone that does not agree with them in order to force their religious agenda on others. I find it amusing that those people – who preach kindness, wisdom and tolerance – are the very ones that are so vehemently against those that do not adhere to their religious views.[/FONT]

[Hdier]

Camoparaldalis (sorry if I misspelled): Yes, I agree that there are people like that out there, but Blueback was saying that the majority of theists were like that. My point was that no, most people are not like that.

I think that many people are making generalizations right now, ones that I don't think are true. For example TruorTumpr (again, sorry if I misspelled), you say that theists are anti-science to one degree or another. Why do you make that assumption? Everyone with a religion that I know of (8) are either pro-science or neutral on the matter. (I am not trying to pick on you, but I work better with examples, and you got unlucky).

Also, just to clear up any confusion, I want to make sure that we are using the word 'theist' as someone who has a religion. If it actually has a different meaning, will someone please inform me?

[Nomad]

"Towards that The Golden Compass movie, no, I didn't see much promoting atheism or bashing theism. Towards the books, well, I read them a while ago and am attempting to remember. Was there a god in there, but some people were just trying to off him? Sounds like it promotes theism, to myself. "Look! There's a god! Let's get him, 'cuz he's creepy!""


The premise was that the deity referred to as God was an angel/scam artist attempting to divert worship from God to itself. Basically, if you go with the implication, Satan Co opted the whole show and humans have been worshiping Satan instead of God this whole time. That would explain a great deal.

The true God is all advertisements say,an expression of true spirituality. The entire gist of the series is that humans were endowed with free will, critical thinking, and it is your responsibility to come to your own conclusions based on your own experiences. No one can force feed you, it's on you, and whatever conclusion you come to is fine, and lond as you do the work, and rely on no other to make your decisions for you.

-Nomad

[TruorTupnm]

*Gasp!* I happen to be pretty achingly horrified at your misspellage, Hdler person! <--- written sarcastically with an intentional misspellage, of course.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Anyways, I didn't write that I figure that most theists are anti-science. I wrote what most atheists I know think, then I wrote what I think most other atheists might be thinking. I never mentioned what I thought most theists think about science. I wouldn't know. I prefer to work on an individual basis unless necessary to do otherwise.

But as to why I figure most atheists would think that most theists are anti-science ---> Eh. The loudest and most annoying (usually what I think of as the majority, unfortunately) atheists seem to be the sort who think that theists are the dangerously crazy sorts that actually do what voices in their heads tell them to do, the sorts who are so headache-inducingly unintelligent that they are happy to cling to all kinds of obvious inconsistencies, as well as the sorts who are so terrifyingly evil that they crafted the torture of Christmas carolling. It is merely an impression, though. Whoops.

Ah. Also, towards the clarification about that His Dark Materials trilogy, I thank you muchly. So the book doesn't sound anti-religious. There is totally a god in there. It's just saying ---> Have an open mind. You could be worshiping someone other than the deity you're a fan of!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Hdier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think that many people are making generalizations right now, ones that I don't think are true. For example TruorTumpr (again, sorry if I misspelled), you say that theists are anti-science to one degree or another. Why do you make that assumption?

Do you ever look for evidence to support your conclusions? That at least would be better than not looking at any evidence at all, although not as good as drawing conclusions from the evidence.

I've never seen a poll that supported your implication that religious people like science.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Results of a Gallup poll in Nov '97

Creationist View (CV): God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
Theistic Evolution (TE): Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation.
Naturalistic Evolution (NE): Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.

>>>>>>>>>> CV / TE / NE
Everyone 44% / 39% / 10%
Scientists 5% / 40% / 55%

In fact "According to Newsweek in 1987, 'By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...'"

All the evidence ever collected (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) supports the idea that people who are bible literate and attend church frequently don't accept scientific explanations which conflict with religious ones. There are varying degrees, some people are so religious they refuse to let their children see a doctor.



I think you might be confusing two seperate ideas.
"science" is a broad term which can encompass both a certain process and the products of that process. The products, things like cars, power plants, and hamburgers are tangible itesm. The process, the scientific method, logic, rationality are intangible things.

People who don't think rationally are much more likely to not understand the process of science. They don't "get it." However, they are perfectly capable of understanding the products of the process. Nearly anyone can be taught how to repair an air conditioner and can spend the rest of their life happily fixing air conditioners without ever understanding how it was invented. The AC repairman views the air conditioner as a thing that just exists, much like a tree or a rock, because he has just as much understanding of how each came to be.

People who think rationally are much more likely to understand the process. It take s rational mind to invent something practical. Rational people "get" science because it is easy for them to apply the process they use conciously everyday to anything else. They are more likely to have produced something new at some point in their life so they can connect the process to the product. Not only can they be taught how to fix an air conditioner they can be taught how to invent a new air conditioner. They think of the air conditioner as a tool invented by a concious mind for a specific purpose, and therefore very different from a tree or rock.

It isn't much of a stretch for somone who believes everything just popped into existence at the whim of God to believe that humans are incapable of creating anything. They will tend to believe that, even if the inventor really thinks it was his idea, he was really inspired by God. On the other hand, it isn't much of a stretch for someone who has ever invented anything to think that God isn't necessary to explain why everything exists.

So, when theists are "anti-science" they don't have any problem with the products (at least not most of them). They have a problem with the process because it is the process that keeps producing products that contradict their beliefs. The process is one of rational inquiry and application, which keeps leading to things like evolution theory, stem cell research, cloning, a natural explanation for homosexuality, proof that prayer doesn't work, etc. They like the cars, they don't like the thought process that led to them. They would be much happier if rational people confined themselves to inventing new tools and stopped questioning their beliefs. That is why they are "anti-science".

[Hdier]

	Originally Posted by TruorTupnm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyways, I didn't write that I figure that most theists are anti-science. I wrote what most atheists I know think, then I wrote what I think most other atheists might be thinking. I never mentioned what I thought most theists think about science. I wouldn't know. I prefer to work on an individual basis unless necessary to do otherwise.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post, then.

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you ever look for evidence to support your conclusions? That at least would be better than not looking at any evidence at all, although not as good as drawing conclusions from the evidence. I've never seen a poll that supported your implication that religious people like science.

I am sorry, I communicated my point badly. I wasn't saying that theists like science, just that they aren't against it. They don't necessarily enjoy, or support science, but they aren't actively against it. Also, the evidence I was using is what I have observed in Pheonix, Arizona and Omaha, Nebraska.

In fact "According to Newsweek in 1987, 'By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science...'" All the evidence ever collected (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) supports the idea that people who are bible literate and attend church frequently don't accept scientific explanations which conflict with religious ones. There are varying degrees, some people are so religious they refuse to let their children see a doctor.

And some people will kill someone for being black, or gay. Saying that 'some people' do something doesn't prove anything. As to the other part, I have already stated that I communicated my point badly. I don't feel that taking religion over science is being against science, but if you think of it that way then I won't argue that point.

I think you might be confusing two seperate ideas. "science" is a broad term which can encompass both a certain process and the products of that process. The products, things like cars, power plants, and hamburgers are tangible itesm. The process, the scientific method, logic, rationality are intangible things. People who don't think rationally are much more likely to not understand the process of science. They don't "get it." However, they are perfectly capable of understanding the products of the process. Nearly anyone can be taught how to repair an air conditioner and can spend the rest of their life happily fixing air conditioners without ever understanding how it was invented. The AC repairman views the air conditioner as a thing that just exists, much like a tree or a rock, because he has just as much understanding of how each came to be. People who think rationally are much more likely to understand the process. It take s rational mind to invent something practical. Rational people "get" science because it is easy for them to apply the process they use conciously everyday to anything else. They are more likely to have produced something new at some point in their life so they can connect the process to the product. Not only can they be taught how to fix an air conditioner they can be taught how to invent a new air conditioner. They think of the air conditioner as a tool invented by a concious mind for a specific purpose, and therefore very different from a tree or rock. It isn't much of a stretch for somone who believes everything just popped into existence at the whim of God to believe that humans are incapable of creating anything. They will tend to believe that, even if the inventor really thinks it was his idea, he was really inspired by God. On the other hand, it isn't much of a stretch for someone who has ever invented anything to think that God isn't necessary to explain why everything exists. So, when theists are "anti-science" they don't have any problem with the products (at least not most of them). They have a problem with the process because it is the process that keeps producing products that contradict their beliefs. The process is one of rational inquiry and application, which keeps leading to things like evolution theory, stem cell research, cloning, a natural explanation for homosexuality, proof that prayer doesn't work, etc. They like the cars, they don't like the thought process that led to them. They would be much happier if rational people confined themselves to inventing new tools and stopped questioning their beliefs. That is why they are "anti-science".

I wish to make an objection: You have implied that theists are irrational, while atheists are rational. There are both rational and irrational people in each group.

[INTeJer]

	Originally Posted by Hdier To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I wish to make an objection: You have implied that theists are irrational, while atheists are rational. There are both rational and irrational people in each group.

Faith is irrational. If it was rational, it wouldn't be faith but logic. Hence, theists (here defined as those who have faith), are irrational.

Your objection is overruled.

[Hdier]

So having faith automatically makes you irrational? If someone were to listen to a trusted friend who doesn't have any evidence, but you trust him/her and take his/her word on faith then would that would make this person irrational?

[blueback]

See, this is exactly why I keep refering to the difinitions of the words we are using.

The American Heritage Dictionary has this to say about Irrational:
* Not endowed with reason
* Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock
* Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment

and about Faith:

* Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

So, yes, faith makes you irrational. I'll break it down into little pieces

1) you have faith in something
2) the definition of faith requires a lack of logic and evidence
3) therefore, you have confidence without reason
4) no reason means you are irrational

Now, that is why I am right. You are wrong because you mistakenly use the word "faith" when you mean "think." If you have previous evidence that your friend is reliable, trustworthy, then you are not drawing a conclusion from a lack of evidence.

Because you are basing your trust on a history of trustworthiness you are using logic and evidence, which means you don't "have faith" in them. You "think" they are worthy of your confidence. You are taking an informed risk on them. Maybe you have the same feelings about trusting them as you do about trusting God, but you still don't have faith in the friend because you have evidence to support your conclusion.

So, in your example, it is not irrational to trust a friend who has given you evidence of their trustworthiness. You are simply using the word "faith" inappropriately.

[rwyatt365]

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, yes, faith makes you irrational. I'll break it down into little pieces 1) you have faith in something 2) the definition of faith requires a lack of logic and evidence 3) therefore, you have confidence without reason 4) no reason means you are irrational

One has faith in something, or about something (faith in God, faith that the government will always do the right thing, etc.). Therefore, one's faith in, or about something can be called irrational (by your logic) but the person themself cannot be called irrational in a blanket statement because your logical premise #1 explicitly says "in something".

[Hdier]

Good point, blueback. However, I would like to point something out: you are working under the assumption that if someone has an irrational aspect, they must be irrational (when you say that someone is irrational, I assume that you mean generally irrational in the majority of their life; please correct me if I am wrong). This would be kin to saying that if I lie to my dad then I am automatically a bad person! Someone can have an aspect associated with a specific attribute without having the actual attribute itself!

Edit: Is that what the above poster was trying to say? If it was, sorry for repeating him/her.