What if the Church did this in response to the same-sex "marriage" debate?

[Regular_Atheist]

Then it is by a deep, abiding faith that you live, RA.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. You’re on a forum filled with faith-based people.

Well, then, by that logic I suppose everyone lives their life in a faith-based way, at least to a certain extent. Though I do maintain that having trust in a pilot is not the same as having faith in a claim. Trusting a pilot is based off of evidence. After all, I know that the majority of pilots make these trips regularly and know how to fly a plane. From these facts and my own experiences with air travel, I can put some trust into the pilot. While it may be faith, it isn’t blind faith, and it certainly isn’t faith in a religious way.

That’s an interesting rhetorical question to answer…until you get on that plane. Then it becomes, “I have faith in the pilot.” Then you are putting faith in the pilot’s ability to fly you, when you have never checked her credentials.

As I’ve already said, I have some trust in pilots, but it’s a trust based on evidence and past experiences. I also fail to see how getting onto the plane suddenly means I am admitting that I think the pilot is completely competent at flying a plane. I may still be a little nervous, and I certainly wouldn’t trust them completely.

Again, nothing wrong with that. I’m just pointing out that you live your life in a faith-filled manner, and ought not object to someone else following that paradigm as well.

I don’t object to others believing things through faith. I just can’t believe things through blind faith alone. You seem to be trying to compare trust in a pilot with religious faith in a deity. I don’t see how they’re comparable. By trusting the pilot I’m not stating that I believe the pilot is qualified to fly the plane. I would be fine with admitting that the pilot my be completely incompetent, and that we may crash and die in a fiery explosion. I would just think it to be unlikely. I go through life with the possibility of me being sent to a fiery place of torture when I die, so why is it so hard for you to accept that I could get onto a plane and accept the possibility of the pilot being incompetent?

You have to make a decision at some point. You get on the plane or you don’t. You accept Jesus as a historical person or you don’t.

I’m sorry, but I cannot claim to know something that I can’t possibly know. Even the things I believe could always be wrong. I think it’s important to accept that.

In the end, there is no such thing as an agnostic Delta customer.

I’ve basically already responded to this. As I’ve said, I don’t understand how getting onto a plane is somehow admitting that I believe the pilot is perfectly competent and qualified to fly the plane. I am and would be well aware of the possibility of the pilot not knowing a thing about flying.

I’ve also got to stop separating the quotations up like this.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, then, by that logic I suppose everyone lives their life in a faith-based way, at least to a certain extent.

'zactly.

So an atheist with integrity ought not sneer at anyone who says, “I believe God exists based on faith!” For we are using the same logic that you use. We trust the Church, based on evidence.

Just like you do.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

'zactly.

So an atheist with integrity ought not sneer at anyone who says, “I believe God exists based on faith!” For we are using the same logic that you use. We trust the Church, based on evidence.

Just like you do.

It’s not really nice to sneer at anyone. At any rate, if you believe something based on evidence, I don’t really consider that to be a faith-based belief. Not by the definition of faith I know, anyway.

 

[PRmerger]

As I’ve already said, I have some trust in pilots, but it’s a trust based on evidence and past experiences**. I also fail to see how getting onto the plane suddenly means I am admitting that I think the pilot is completely competent at flying a plane**. I may still be a little nervous, and I certainly wouldn’t trust them completely.

LOL! Seriously??

Only a dum-dum would get on a plane if he didn’t feel the pilot was completely competent.

No offense meant, BTW. I posit that you’re not a dum-dum but rather you actually do believe the pilot is completely competent.

 

[CollegeStinks]

I definitely don’t think people trust the pilot because of evidence. Since you’re all about evidence, where is your evidence to support your claim?

I trust the pilot because of his authority and nothing more. I don’t know a thing about how many pilots are successful or not, and if one can even say some are better than others. Simply because he has a badge that says “pilot,” I trust him. While appeals to authority don’t work in debates, they certainly work in real life. “I know how to fly a plane, I AM a pilot.” Even if in reality the guy is a fake, I’d still trust him simply because of the authoritative presentation he makes (this is of course assuming that I don’t know he’s fake). I’m pretty sure this is what goes through the average citizen’s head when they step on a plane, as not everyone is paranoid beyond belief about whether or not they have evidence for every single decision of their lives. The thought is simply “He’s a pilot, therefore he can fly.” The fact that he can fly a plane is fully and completely implicated by the fact that he is designated the title “pilot.” John is a pilot. Therefore, John can fly a plane. People do not seek evidence for whether or not John can fly a plane, unless they are the incredibly paranoid type.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I definitely don’t think people trust the pilot because of evidence. Since you’re all about evidence, where is your evidence to support your claim?

I know that most pilots reach their destinations safely, so there is little reason to expect this one to be completely and utterly incompetent.

LOL! Seriously??

Only a dum-dum would get on a plane if he didn’t feel the pilot was completely competent.

No offense meant, BTW. I posit that you’re not a dum-dum but rather you actually do believe the pilot is completely competent.

Well, I must be a dum-dum, then.

I expect to arrive at my destination safely, obviously, but only because I never give the flight much thought. If anyone asked, I’d admit that I couldn’t possibly say that the pilot was completely trustworthy. I simply couldn’t. I am well aware that the plane could crash and I could die Though I don’t expect this to happen, I’d admit it could be a possibility.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t object to others believing things through faith. I just can’t believe things through blind faith alone.

Surely you’ve been in dialogue with Catholics long enough to know that the Church does not teach a “blind faith alone” paradigm.

So let’s leave that straw man to burn and wither where it belongs.

You seem to be trying to compare trust in a pilot with religious faith in a deity

Yes.

I don’t see how they’re comparable. By trusting the pilot I’m not stating that I believe the pilot is qualified to fly the plane. I would be fine with admitting that the pilot my be completely incompetent,…

snicker out loud!

You’d be fine with that and get on a plane with this sentiment?

I believe you wouldn’t do that. Ever. I have faith in my proposition based on the evidence of your otherwise lucid posts here on the CAFs

 

[PRmerger]

I know that most pilots reach their destinations safely, so there is little reason to expect this one to be completely and utterly incompetent.

'zactly. You have faith in the pilot.Based on a little evidence. Not overwhelming proof.

Now, apply that to Christians who have faith in God’s existence. The level of evidence, frankly, supercedes the evidence you have that a pilot can fly a plane. (See Peter Kreeft’s page ibid). And yet for some reason this is not enough to compel you.

Curious, this.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Surely you’ve been in dialogue with Catholics long enough to know that the Church does not teach a “blind faith alone” paradigm.

So let’s leave that straw man to burn and wither where it belongs.

Yeah, sorry. That wasn’t supposed to be a dig at Catholics. I was referring more to the people who claim that you should believe in God through faith. Generally, though, I’ve always considered faith in the sense we’re talking about (rather than faith in the sense of trust) to be blind faith. The definition I’ve learned is that faith is the belief in something without evidence. If you have evidence, then it isn’t faith.

snicker out loud!

You’d be fine with that and get on a plane with this sentiment?

I believe you wouldn’t do that. Ever. I have faith in my proposition based on the evidence of your otherwise lucid posts here on the CAFs

Why ask me a question and then reject my answer? Why even bother asking? You may as well just ignore me, and then attribute whatever beliefs you want to me. You clearly aren’t going to accept my answers.

'zactly. You have faith in the pilot.Based on a little evidence. Not overwhelming proof.

I trust him, but I don’t have complete faith in him. I’ve said time and time again that I’d admit that he may be incompetent. He may be able to fly the plane, but there is an equal chance that he won’t be able to do so. You just keep on telling me what I’d believe in that situation, though, and don’t actually acknowledge what I’m saying.

Now, apply that to Christians who have faith in God’s existence. The level of evidence, frankly, supercedes the evidence you have that a pilot can fly a plane. (See Peter Kreeft’s page ibid). And yet for some reason this is not enough to compel you.

Curious, this.

I have the same belief regarding the pilot as I do the existence of God. God may exist, he may not. The pilot may be competent, he may not. I can’t know for sure.

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah, sorry. That wasn’t supposed to be a dig at Catholics. I was referring more to the people who claim that you should believe in God through faith. Generally, though, I’ve always considered faith in the sense we’re talking about (rather than faith in the sense of trust) to be blind faith. The definition I’ve learned is that faith is the belief in something without evidence. If you have evidence, then it isn’t faith.

Then what is it you call that Catholic have?

 

[PRmerger]

Why ask me a question and then reject my answer? Why even bother asking? You may as well just ignore me, and then attribute whatever beliefs you want to me. You clearly aren’t going to accept my answers.

Because, as I said, I am going by the evidence of your other posts, which do not limn an irrational sensibility.

 

[PRmerger]

I have the same belief regarding the pilot as I do the existence of God. God may exist, he may not. The pilot may be competent, he may not. I can’t know for sure.

You have stated that there is evidence to support your claim that the pilot’s going to get you to your destination.

So what’s the parallel evidence you proffer for God’s existence, since you have the “same belief”?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Then what is it you call that Catholic have?

A belief based on evidence?

Because, as I said, I am going by the evidence of your other posts, which do not limn an irrational sensibility.

I suppose you’re right in saying that I wouldn’t get onto a plane with that attitude. I’d want to comfort myself. But if it came down to what I actually believe, and I was actually questioned on my attitude to it, I’d have to admit that I couldn’t know for sure if the pilot was competent to fly or not.

You have stated that there is evidence to support your claim that the pilot’s going to get you to your destination.

So what’s the parallel evidence you proffer for God’s existence, since you have the “same belief”?

I said that I have similar beliefs, not that I have the same motives behind the belief. The reason why I can’t say God defiantly doesn’t exist is because it’s a negative claim, and I can’t prove it.

 

[down_under]

It’s not really nice to sneer at anyone. At any rate, if you believe something based on evidence, I don’t really consider that to be a faith-based belief. Not by the definition of faith I know, anyway.

Every Catholic argument that I know of has a logical argument of why the things are bad to do other than the fact that they are an offense against truth and therefore God.(I am not a biblical scholar, nor a moral theologian perhaps you can suggest something you feel has no logical defense but I know of no such Catholic argument)

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Every Catholic argument that I know of has a logical argument of why the things are bad to do other than the fact that they are an offense against truth and therefore God.(I am not a biblical scholar, nor a moral theologian perhaps you can suggest something you feel has no logical defense but I know of no such Catholic argument)

Alright, cool. Nothing I said was intended to be anti-Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

A belief based on evidence?

**I suppose you’re right **in saying that I wouldn’t get onto a plane with that attitude.

Ah, RA, you are the best atheist I’ve ever had the privilege of being in dialogue with!

My favorite 4 words on this thread!

I’d want to comfort myself. But if it came down to what I actually believe, and I was actually questioned on my attitude to it, I’d have to admit that I couldn’t know for sure if the pilot was competent to fly or not.

And, again, in the end, when you get on that plane, you are making a profession of faith, “I do believe that this pilot is competent!”

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Ah, RA, you are the best atheist I’ve ever had the privilege of being in dialogue with!

My favorite 4 words on this thread!

Well, I’m certainly not stubborn.

And, again, in the end, when you get on that plane, you are making a profession of faith, “I do believe that this pilot is competent!”

Well, it might actually be more along the lines of “I hope the pilot is competent!” At any rate, no matter what I’d say to comfort myself, I wouldn’t truly believe it.

 

[PRmerger]

A belief based on evidence?

What evidence have you examined that Catholics use to compel them into belief?

Edit: Use of the word “compel” ought to be understood with nuance. It is not meant to be synonymous with “force” here.

 

[PRmerger]

I said that I have similar beliefs, not that I have the same motives behind the belief. The reason why I can’t say God defiantly doesn’t exist is because it’s a negative claim, and I can’t prove it.

But you are saying that you have some degree of faith in a pilot’s ability to fly you to your destination, based on some limited evidence: “I haven’t heard that she’s ever crashed a plane before”.

So if there’s a similar degree of faith in God’s existence, what supports this conclusion?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

What evidence have you examined that Catholics use to compel them into belief?

I haven’t. I’m going purely on what you’ve said. I’ve read lots of articles concerning evidence for God, and many of them were most likely written by Catholics, so I’m guessing it would depend on the individual in question. I’m sure many Catholics don’t have actual evidence to back up their beliefs. I don’t actually know much about Catholic teaching, though.

But you are saying that you have some degree of faith in a pilot’s ability to fly you to your destination, based on some limited evidence: “I haven’t heard that she’s ever crashed a plane before”.

So if there’s a similar degree of faith in God’s existence, what supports this conclusion?

I said. I can’t prove that God isn’t real. It’s a negative position. Since I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, I have to conclude that he could either be existent or non-existent.