Talk:Faith

Hmm. Y'know, the fact that Our Buddy And Source Of All Wisdom Andy believes that faith is uniquely and solely Christian--and that he specifically affirms that those silly Jewish people don't know what faith is--is really too juicy not to do something with. Would this be the place, or should it go on the CP pages? --Phentari 18:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I think it's on his article. And I don't think his nutty perspective deserves much more promotion than that.  ħ uman  20:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Is there any way of shoehorning including the idea of faith in the scientific process in here? I only ask because of the affair Lenski. 20:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I see also'd informed faith, which you might want to spiff up a bit, since I just bunged out a stub when it came up elsewhere.  ħ uman  21:42, 26 June 2008 (EDT)


 * perhaps Faith is better expressed as a belief in something inherently unprovable Hamster 19:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That couldn't hurt. Wanna give a try at working that in? 19:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Faith is not reserved to the unprovable; one can have "faith" in things that can be proven wrong. Look at the young-earth creationists. 19:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point... doh... 19:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While the YEC position may be "proven" to be wrong surely that doesn't contradict the statement that their belief is inherently unprovable. 19:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point... doh... 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The qualifier should then be added that it is a belief in a statement that cannot be proven correct. 19:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking. Doesn't not proven imply that? 19:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In logic there are three possible categories for the provability of a statement: provably true, provably false, or unproven either way. The "unprovable" implied the latter category, when what was meant was probably either "unprovable either way" or "provably false." 20:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We're probably playing around with different ways the word "faith" can be used. I think the important thing about YECs and religion in general is that these people continue to have faith in something is spite of it being proved wrong.--Bobbing up 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, faith itself is belief without proof. Without proof one cannot establish fact, and without fact one cannot claim to know.  Therefore, faith is belief in ignorance.  If one still believes despite being proved wrong then technically they do still believe in something with out proof of it.MarcDLS (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fun:Faith
I propose to move this article to the Fun:namespace. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 05:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I'd agree, except it's not funny. Do we have a rantspace?  Oh, yeah, it's called the essayspace!   05:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 * We could also rewrite it to something that actually doesn't suck informs about the subject. -- 05:46, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 * That was the second, implied part of my proposal. I have faith in you, AKjeldsen, in that you could inform about the subject. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 05:48, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry, Ed, I'm running an experiment. I'm trying to see how radically atheist the gentlemen at this website are willing to be when I'm not whining about their fascinating insights. Interfering in this way would obviously interrupt the experiment. -- 09:03, 2 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I'm sure the article could do with some expansion, but I see no reason to move it to "Fun".--Bobbing up 05:50, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Reason is the greatest enemy...
Is it worth going a little deeper into this quote. I know it's often banded about as "Look! Religious people need to avoid science!!" but, while not a quote mine, it does fall under the banner of I Think You'll Find It's A Little More Complicated Than That. Luther goes on to state how faith effectively enlightens reason with respect to divine matters. ADK ...I'll fly your wizard! 16:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific quote or passage by Luther that explains this position? Because based on your summary, it sounds an awful lot like he's saying, "reason and logic can be used to rationalize things, like religion, that are generally defended by appealing to the virtue of faith." 16:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just flicking through wp:fideism which has something in it. It seems that's what he's saying, though.

Before faith and the knowledge of God reason is darkness in divine matters, but through faith it is turned into a light in the believer and serves piety as a excellent instrument. For just as all natural endowments serve to further impiety in the godless, so they serve to further salvation in the godly. An eloquent tongue promotes faith; reason makes speech clear, and everything helps faith forward. Reason receives life from faith; it is killed by it and brought back to life.
 * ADK ...I'll nuke your spork! 17:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to be condescending, but Luther sounds like he's just rattling off a bunch of meaningless applause lights. What the hell does "reason receives life from faith" even mean? 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea. As you say, it's one of those things that seems deep but really isn't. ADK ...I'll hurt your pumpkin! 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Things Christianity has never been able to do
SChristianity failurehow one scientific truth about nature or new technology that was discovered first in the pages of the Bible.

Show one disease eliminated from the earth or one missing limb restored through prayer.

Show one person who can preach the gospel in every human language.

Show one Bible prophecy or one prediction by a Christian prophet that is accepted as fulfilled by non-Christians.

Show one supernatural event in the Bible that is accepted by historians.

Show one earthquake or volcano that was halted by an incantation or holy relic.

Show one tsunami or plague whose damage was undone by divine action.

Show any supernatural claim within Christianity that is accepted by non-Christians.

CedricDoodlehopper (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Originally written on Cross Examined. What's exactly the point of copying it here?--ZooGuard (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of those listed are unfalsifiable, in that by being undone supernaturally there potentially will be no material evidence that they ever happened.-- 194.81.33.118 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The improvement tag
Seems particularly apt in this case. Anna Livia (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)