Why do people believe the bible?

[Mr Walker]

On 08/02/2018 at 5:22 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

I'm not, it's the standard used to evaluate everything else most people believe in, we have abundant evidence that objective evidence is required for us to make any technological or medical advances, on what rational grounds should we make a special exception for your god?  If someone says they have subjective evidence that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, you don't ask for any objective evidence for that?  You just believe them?  Believing everything that everyone claims just based solely on subjective evidence results in a massive contradictory mess. 

Given how much you go on about the UB I know that can't be the case, there is no shortage of religious people whose subjective evidence tells them the UB is incorrect, yet you don't accept their subjective evidence?  Why?  I assume it's not because you'd want some objective evidence in order to be satisfied they are correct?

This is such a common misunderstanding.  Beliefs are not constructed on evidence bases They are constructed because and where there are no (or non sufficient) evidences to prove anything.

ie a belief can legitimately exist where there is NO objective evidence. It is constructed using only internal logics of the mind  It cannot exist where sufficient evidences for knowledge exist.

Eg people believed the sun was alive and self aware because it was moving regularly and with apparent purpose, was very powerful,  and had a strong influence on their lives.  Without science or data the  used internal logic to work out that the only thing they knew like this was themselves Thus a purposeful powerful being must have intelligence, like themselves,  and its own needs desires and purpose like the y had. If this was so, then it could be reasoned with and bargained with, and influenced by prayer or sacrifice.    

Given knowldge of the time, this was a logical and legitimate belief Today it would not be,  because of the scientific knowledge about the sun which we have accumulated  

You can deny someone is napoleon Bonaparte because you know who the real one is. 

Course if you happened to be speaking with this bloke at the time,  it could be a bit embarrassing

 

 

He actually Is Prince Napoleon Bonaparte.  Current heir to the house of Napoleon Bonaparte  

You and will are both right about belief and knowledge  eg which is more important to you?  The certificate on a doctors wall or your faith in him to be able to treatand heal you effectively /

Given your personality, maybe the certificate would be more important  (assuming you accept it on faith as genuine) For me (and probably for will) while that certificate is important i still wouldn't let him treat me unless i had faith in him (or her)  That faith is subjective and judgemental, based on my encounters with him, but i trust it a s least as much as i trust the doctors certificate on the wall,  perhaps more so.  

Edited February 10, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Ogbin]

8 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

Yes it is proven that adam and eve did not exist in the garden of eden

And you can prove this how?

8 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

All that is absolutely disproven by evolution

How can the bible be disproven by a theory that has never been proven..?

8 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

Another fact the bible omits

Unproven theory's are not fact..

8 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

Civilisations existed around the time of the biblical flood and none of them describe a worldwide flood

That's because they all died in the flood.. You can't record history when your dead. However, nearly every culture since the flood as a story about the flood. In fact there are over 500 story's globally

8 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

Josephus's writings don't count as they were still written after the events

Of course they were written after the events occurred.. That's how you record history..

8 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

It is when you break the sentence part way

Part way or all they way it's a Oxymoronic statement..

8 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

Have faith by all means but don't believe the bible is anything more than bronze aged fairy tales

If I am to believe that the bible is just a book of fairy tales then what is there to have faith in? Faith is believing, is it not?

8 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

Yes. By the events described within

Just because you choose not to believe doesn't mean it's not true..

8 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

No proof whatsoever for any of the events at all

You might want to double check that..

8 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

Where's god now?

God is sitting on His throne in heaven..

9 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

He's not been seen since the first century a.d!

Christ ascended into heaven after He finished His work on the cross. He now sits on the right hand of the Father waiting for His enemies to become His footstool. Then Christ will return to the earth and rule for 1000 years.

9 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

He couldn't keep his opinions to himself back then

What non-believers call opinions, followers of Christ call Truth. After all Jesus is the way, the Truth, and the life.

9 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

now there's neither hide nor hair of him!

Physically no. But what you have to remember is the Holy Ghost is always present on earth. The Holy Ghost is the 3rd part of the Godhead.

9 hours ago, bigjim36 said:

It's almost as if he doesn't exist

Are you leaving the possibility that he might exist?

[+Liquid Gardens]

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Beliefs are not constructed on evidence bases They are constructed because and where there are no (or non sufficient) evidences to prove anything.

False, lots if not most beliefs are evidence-based, as a lot if not most people call beliefs based on non sufficient evidence, 'evidence-based'.  Evidence can provide 'certainty', but it doesn't have to.

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

a belief can legitimately exist where there is NO objective evidence. It is constructed using only internal logics of the mind

So?  It doesn't change the beliefs that exist based on objective evidence.  See:  Bigfoot.

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You can deny someone is napoleon Bonaparte because you know who the real one is. 

Not in your world I can't, with it's astral travels/remote viewing, alien angels, and collective consciousness.

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

That faith is subjective and judgemental, based on my encounters with him, but i trust it a s least as much as i trust the doctors certificate on the wall,  perhaps more so.  

*shrug*  It doesn't matter what you would trust, it matters whether your trust or faith has anything to do with a doctor's ability to heal you.  I don't go to doctors because I have faith in them, I go to doctors because of evidence.  I don't have 'faith' that doctors will heal me, I have evidence that doctors are successful in treating illnesses sometimes.  Rationally playing the probabilities doesn't require faith.  

The common misunderstanding you are making is that everyone uses words the way you do and views the world the way you do.  The opposing poles of my spectrum is not, as it seems to be with you, 'certainty' and 'faith', it is 'certainty' and 'I don't know'.  Faith doesn't really apply, or is at least something significantly different than will's or your faith in your spiritual/extraterrestrial beliefs.

[bigjim36]

8 hours ago, Ogbin said:

And you can prove this how?

How can the bible be disproven by a theory that has never been proven..?

Unproven theory's are not fact..

That's because they all died in the flood.. You can't record history when your dead. However, nearly every culture op since the flood as a story about the flood. In fact there are over 500 story's globally

Of course they were written after the events occurred.. That's how you record history..

Part way or all they way it's a Oxymoronic statement..

If I am to believe that the bible is just a book of fairy tales then what is there to have faith in? Faith is believing, is it not?

Just because you choose not to believe doesn't mean it's not true..

You might want to double check that..

God is sitting on His throne in heaven..

Christ ascended into heaven after He finished His work on the cross. He now sits on the right hand of the Father waiting for His enemies to become His footstool. Then Christ will return to the earth and rule for 1000 years.

What non-believers call opinions, followers of Christ call Truth. After all Jesus is the way, the Truth, and the life.

Physically no. But what you have to remember is the Holy Ghost is always present on earth. The Holy Ghost is the 3rd part of the Godhead.

Are you leaving the possibility that he might exist?

Am I being trolled or are you really that dense? If I'm being trolled then bravo sir. If you really do believe the rubbish you have just spouted then I think you need to read another book other than the bible. Everything you have written is wrong. Literally everything. I mean it's embarrassing how wrong you are. The catholic church even accepts evolution as fact and that the story of adam and eve is just a myth. Evolution proves that we didn't all descend from adam and eve because we all have different DNA, DNA contains our genetic make up and scientists can determine what race/region we come from. Fossil records of early hominids, of which there are many, also disprove the adam and eve story, we can literally follow the evolution of man from a common ape ancestor. Just because it is called a theory doesn't mean it's not a fact. Gravity is just a theory and yet you haven't floated away today have you? Does that prove gravity is a fact? Or is it still just a theory? As for the biblical flood maybe I should've been clearer, lots of ancient civilisations were around during that time and CONTINUED UNINTERRUPTED up until thousands of years afterwards, leaving behind writings, wall paintings, artifacts, houses, so on and so on. Not just one civilization mind, hundreds upon hundreds. I think that completely disproves the story of noah and the global flood. Now you keep saying I have no proof of anything, how about you prove to me that god exists? Using objective evidence. The bible does not count as objective evidence. It's like saying I have proof harry potter exists, look he's in these books.

Edited February 10, 2018 by bigjim36

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

(Reply to bold portions made by Ogbin)

Yes it is proven that adam and eve did not exist in the garden of eden

     And you can prove this how?

All that is absolutely disproven by evolution

     How can the bible be disproven by a theory that has never been proven..?

Another fact the bible omits

     Unproven theory's are not fact..

Civilisations existed around the time of the biblical flood and none of them describe a worldwide flood

     That's because they all died in the flood.. You can't record history when your dead. However, nearly every culture since the flood as a story about the flood. In fact there are over 500 story's globally

Josephus's writings don't count as they were still written after the events

     Of course they were written after the events occurred.. That's how you record history..

Where's god now?

     God is sitting on His throne in heaven..

He's not been seen since the first century a.d!

     Christ ascended into heaven after He finished His work on the cross. He now sits on the right hand of the Father waiting for His enemies to become His footstool. Then Christ will return to the earth and rule for 1000 years.

     Are you leaving the possibility that he might exist? 

 

It can be proven using the Jews own alleged chronology and calendar. According to them Creation started circa 3760 BC, by their current calendar. It is an established fact that the earliest humans, meaning members of the genus Homo, have existed since circa 2.8 MILLION years before present (BP). This makes the Jewish story of humanities creation irrelevant by some 2.79+ million years. 

Evolution is both theory AND fact. It would benefit you to learn about it.     http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

As evolution has been proven you're left with a non-argument. 

No, they didn't. They continued to exist well through the time of the alleged Great Flood while not noticing anything of its like happening. 

Josephus had no facts in which to support that claim all he had were stories. Unsupported stories are not fact. 

Unsupported opinion/belief.

More unsupported opinion/belief. 

A possibility of something is not evidence that it is true, sorry. 

cormac

[+Sherapy]

8 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

False, lots if not most beliefs are evidence-based, as a lot if not most people call beliefs based on non sufficient evidence, 'evidence-based'.  Evidence can provide 'certainty', but it doesn't have to.

So?  It doesn't change the beliefs that exist based on objective evidence.  See:  Bigfoot.

Not in your world I can't, with it's astral travels/remote viewing, alien angels, and collective consciousness.

*shrug*  It doesn't matter what you would trust, it matters whether your trust or faith has anything to do with a doctor's ability to heal you.  I don't go to doctors because I have faith in them, I go to doctors because of evidence.  I don't have 'faith' that doctors will heal me, I have evidence that doctors are successful in treating illnesses sometimes.  Rationally playing the probabilities doesn't require faith.  

The common misunderstanding you are making is that everyone uses words the way you do and views the world the way you do.  The opposing poles of my spectrum is not, as it seems to be with you, 'certainty' and 'faith', it is 'certainty' and 'I don't know'.  Faith doesn't really apply, or is at least something significantly different than will's or your faith in your spiritual/extraterrestrial beliefs.

LG, you have done an amazing job of marshaling out that beliefs are "evidence based" more than they are not and I want to add that we most likely don't "will" ourselves  to just beleive things, that even faith is based on something, some type of evidence. I think we are hard wired for it, for example personal experience ( anecdotal ) is a biggie many use this including Walker as his "evidence" to support his beliefs. 

In Walkers case, he does a great job of outlining how he accepts a belief, in the example I use of his he uses ad populum and bandwagon appeal and anecdotal evidence  to weigh the true or false of his beliefs. 

"Given that this is compared with te same thing today eg peole reporting and claiming contact with god, the comparison is acceptable"( Walker)........ 

"Truth never came into it I was comparing past and present recorded claims of contact" ( Walker).....this is banwagon appeal.

"Now to go to truth" ( Walker) 
"I know that i have such a contact This means that it is not just probable but likely tha t some others have a similar genuine experience it is a bit like claims of alien contact and ufos There are all sorts of fakes  including the deluded but also what appear to be some very genuine cases which cannot be disproved ( Walker ), he concludes the true or false of his claim by using anecdotal evidence in otherwords, his own take, feelings, thoughts on his personal experience. 

He uses these fallacies as his evidence for his beliefs, clearly his conclusion is not based in blind faith.

At current in this thread, Walker proceeds to refute his own argument when he argues  [That] "Beliefs are not constructed on evidence bases They are constructed because and where there are no (or non sufficient) evidences to prove anything"( Walker).

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Sherapy

[XenoFish]

I said it pages ago but. People believe because they want to believe, perhaps it's because such beliefs give their lives meaning or importance. Depending on whatever belief they've taken up, it will mold their mindset to see the world through that subjective filter. No matter how right or wrong it is.

[+Sherapy]

44 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I said it pages ago but. People believe because they want to believe, perhaps it's because such beliefs give their lives meaning or importance. Depending on whatever belief they've taken up, it will mold their mindset to see the world through that subjective filter. No matter how right or wrong it is.

And the want to beleive is rooted  in "something" as opposed to nothing, this would include ones conditioning, and biology too. IMHO

In Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, a new belief is accepted ( retwired) when it is believable ( credible, true enough, feasible, plausible, realistic in ones world view etc.) as you point out, so often it can be anything depending on the person's perspective.

For example, I was the type of person who believes being a good person meant I never said no to the requests of those that needed and asked for my help. 

My therapist told me over and over it was okay to say no, I should say no, it wasn't selfish to say no, I heard myself say omg, I could not be that person at all so incorporating no in my life fell on deaf ears.

Then one day she said look at it this way that you are standing in the way of another person getting the oppourtunity to be a good person, you are preventing them from having the experiences you do, she said look at how much you have grown in empathy and compassion etc etc.  she said let others step up for a change so they too can get the oppourtunity to be a good person. 

Right then and there I rewired my beleif and now I say no all the time. 

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

43 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I said it pages ago but. People believe because they want to believe, perhaps it's because such beliefs give their lives meaning or importance. Depending on whatever belief they've taken up, it will mold their mindset to see the world through that subjective filter. No matter how right or wrong it is.

Very true. We want to believe the significant other in our lives really loves us, even though we can't read their minds or really know their heart save with our own. Yet, as they say, actions speak louder than words and it is their actions, even more than their words, on which we base our faith in them.

[+Hammerclaw]

30 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

And the want to beleive is based on "something" as opposed to nothing, this would include ones conditioning, and biology too. IMHO

In Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, a new belief is accepted ( retwired) when it is believable ( credible, true enough, feasible, plausible, realistic in ones world view etc.) as you point out, so often it can be anything depending on the person's perspective.

For example, I was the type of person who believes being a good person meant I never said no to the requests of those that needed and asked for my help. 

My therapist told me over and over it was okay to say no, I should say no, it wasn't selfish to say no, I heard myself say omg, I could not be that person at all so incorporating no in my life fell on deaf ears.

Then one day she said look at it this way that you are standing in the way of another person getting the oppourtunity to be a good person, you are preventing them from having the experiences you do, she said look at how much you have grown in empathy and compassion etc etc.  she said let others step up for a change so they too can get the oppourtunity to be a good person. 

Right then and there I changed my beleif and now I say no all the time. 

 

It is good to help someone in need, but the best help one can give them is to help them help themselves. That is something all good caregivers know, intuitively, or learn from experience.

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

False, lots if not most beliefs are evidence-based, as a lot if not most people call beliefs based on non sufficient evidence, 'evidence-based'.  Evidence can provide 'certainty', but it doesn't have to.

So?  It doesn't change the beliefs that exist based on objective evidence.  See:  Bigfoot.

Not in your world I can't, with it's astral travels/remote viewing, alien angels, and collective consciousness.

*shrug*  It doesn't matter what you would trust, it matters whether your trust or faith has anything to do with a doctor's ability to heal you.  I don't go to doctors because I have faith in them, I go to doctors because of evidence.  I don't have 'faith' that doctors will heal me, I have evidence that doctors are successful in treating illnesses sometimes.  Rationally playing the probabilities doesn't require faith.  

The common misunderstanding you are making is that everyone uses words the way you do and views the world the way you do.  The opposing poles of my spectrum is not, as it seems to be with you, 'certainty' and 'faith', it is 'certainty' and 'I don't know'.  Faith doesn't really apply, or is at least something significantly different than will's or your faith in your spiritual/extraterrestrial beliefs.

This simply shows a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of a belief construct.

Where we have evidences we have knowledge Knowledge prevents beliefs and non beliefs from being logically constructed  eg it is not logical to say you believe you had a mother .

Now a person may tend to a belief because there are some evidences supporting it, but a belief can be totally logically and rationally constructed when there is no evidence either way.

 Eg you can believe there is intelligent life on other planets in the solar system or not,  precisely because there is little or no evidence for either belief.

 However you CANNOT believe or disbelieve that there is intelligent life on earth (despite all the memes on the topic) 

As far as i am concerned there is less objective evidence for big foot than for gods and angels.

My point stands, however. It is possible, legitimately, to believe or disbelieve in big foot precisely because there is no compelling evidence for it  One cannot believe or disbelieve in elephants, while remaining logical and rational.  

This goes to all the things you mention. I know the y exist because i have physical experience with them  A person without such personal evidences is free to believe or disbelieve.  I am not. 

I do not believe that you go to a doctor, without faith that that doctor can heal you  (it might be faith in the doctor or in modern medicine) I don't believe you would choose a doctor you did not have faith in, over one you did.  Evidences are important but trust and faith are what drive us

So what do you do when faced with a decision where you do not know  ? Nothing? Or act in faith?  

I don't believe in god, or angels, ghosts, or remote projection. I know these things are all real.

I tend not to believe or disbelieve in things i don't know, but I am always happy to step forward, confident in belief and faith that all will be well, because it always is, and always has been.   So if an alien landed in my back yard, I would step up to it confidently and try to communicate with it. 

[+Sherapy]

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

It is good to help someone in need, but the best help one can give them is to help them help themselves. That is something all good caregivers know, intuitively, or learn from experience.

 It s great advice, but not enough caregivers practice this, unfortunately. 

I am on a case right now, where the caregiver is burnt out, stressed out, chronic illnesses, it is not enough she gets time off if she uses it to stress or feel guilty and this is what she was doing. I tell her all the time she has to think of herself, include herself. She has been taking care of her mom 24/7 for 13 years. 

It wasn't helping, and her time off was not bringing her back refreshed. 

She kept making comments alluding to how she couldn't spend the money, terrible guilt around this, even knowing there was plenty of money, her mom was far from broke, then I told her how it worked as a paid live in caregiver. 

She about passed out, a paid live in not only gets a monthly fee, ( because they can't go out and work) but rent and a respite fund for time off. 

In the state of Ca., a caregiver who works for a service is paid anywhere from 15.00 to 25.00 an hour plus OT after 12 hours. You can't work more than 4 days a week no more than 12 hour shifts though. 

Live in on the Low end is 7 thousand a month, High end is 10 grand a month. 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

Yeah, my sister works,at Kaiser Permanente and says the ones she knows average a minimum of 60 grand a year. Of course, the cost of living is higher there, but pretty good income--and some of them have second jobs. I couldn't do it, except as I did as a labor of love. You're stronger that way than I am, Sheri.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

 

You did enough in one lifetime caring for your mom, it is time for you now. 

[+Hammerclaw]

Time. Sometimes I feel like the character Lazarus Long, in Robert Heinlein's Time Enough For Love. Set in the future, he is the oldest man alive, forgoing his rejuvenation shots because he is weary of life and ready to die. He is rejuvenated, none-the-less and against his wishes by his descendants who claim they need his wisdom. He finds their requests ludicrous, but agrees to remain alive, only so long as they listen to his stories--and he's quite long-winded. I suppose it's when there's no one left to listen that we wither, a shriveled fruit left alone on the vine.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[Davros of Skaro]

19 hours ago, Ogbin said:

But what you have to remember is the Holy Ghost is always present on earth. The Holy Ghost is the 3rd part of the Godhead.

That's the Holy Dopamine Ghost.

There's a reason the one unforgivable sin is to reject it. It's the vehicle for addiction. The ancients thought it was a paranormal presence that guided you. But it's only evolution's proverbial carrot stick dangling in front of the donkey.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Time. Sometimes I feel like the character Lazarus Long, in Robert Heinlein's Time Enough For Love. Set in the future, he is the oldest man alive, forgoing his rejuvenation shots because he is weary of life and ready to die. He is rejuvenated, none-the-less and against his wishes by his descendants who claim they need his wisdom. He finds their requests ludicrous, but agrees to remain alive, only so long as they listen to his stories--and he's quite long-winded. I suppose it's when there's no one left to listen that we wither, a shriveled fruit left alone on the vine.

How long were you a caregiver?

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

How long were you a caregiver?

1996-2016. Light duty at first as they were still mobile, but in the last ten years my mother and father weakened, then he died died in 2009. I took care of her to the end as she found it harder and harder to get around, even with her walker. Then in 2015 her legs gave out and she took to her bed. I had to do everything for her, Sheri, bedpan duty included. It's something a son shouldn't have to do, but she had no daughter fit or willing.  There was nobody else, just me. Why do I believe in God and Heaven? Because I've already been through Hell.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

49 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

1996-2016. Light duty at first as they were still mobile, but in the last ten years my mother and father weakened, then he died died in 2009. I took care of her to the end as she found it harder and harder to get around, even with her walker. Then in 2015 her legs gave out and she took to her bed. I had to do everything for her, Sheri, bedpan duty included. It's something a son shouldn't have to do, but she had no daughter fit or willing.  There was nobody else, just me. Why do I believe in God and Heaven? Because I've already been through Hell.

Geez, so you cared for both parents, alone. For 20 years you gave up your life. 

It probably is no consultation to you if I say what an angel you are, or that you more than earned your halo. I think you are an incredible man, compassionate and kind. It doesn't give you back those years though, or change your sister, unfortunately, 

Thank goodness you had your faith in god to pull you through, and I hope that with the time you have left you live your dreams, whatever they may be.

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Geez, so you cared for both parents, alone. For 20 years you gave up your life. 

It probably is no consultation to you if I say what an angel you are, or that you more than earned your halo. I think you are an incredible man, compassionate and kind. It doesn't give you back those years though, or change your sister, unfortunately, 

Thank goodness you had your faith in god to pull you through, and I hope that with the time you have left you live your dreams, whatever they maybe. 

 

Women like you are the stuff of dreams, Sheri, for a man with the eye to see it, the arms to hold it, the heart to keep it. I'm glad Sean found his dream.

[+Hammerclaw]

10 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Women like you are the stuff of dreams, Sheri, for a man with the eye to see it, the arms to hold it, the heart to keep it. I'm glad Sean found his dream.

My youngest sister is much like yours, the older one in California went through three bad marriages before finding her dream, only to have him die of cancer a few years after their wedding. Jaime was a good man and a good husband and a good friend. She cared for him, those years of hope and desperation and he died at home in her arms, for she would have it no other way. She's paid her dues.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[+Sherapy]

14 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Women like you are the stuff of dreams, Sheri, for a man with the eye to see it, the arms to hold it, the heart to keep it. I'm glad Sean found his dream.

Thank you for your kind words. In Sean, I found mine

[+Sherapy]

4 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

My youngest sister is much like yours, the older one in California went through three bad marriages before finding her dream, only to have him die of cancer a few years after their wedding. Jaime was a good man and a good husband and a good friend. She cared for him, those years of hope and desperation and he died at home in her arms, for she would have it no other way. She's paid her dues.

Geez, I can't imagine losing my partner, my heart goes out to your sister. 

Indeed, my younger sister is an absolute mess. I don't deal with her anymore. 

[+Hammerclaw]

8 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Geez, I can't imagine losing my partner, my heart goes out to your sister. 

Indeed, my younger sister is an absolute mess. I don't deal with her anymore. 

Showing compassion to mine is like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in the bottom. Nothing is ever enough. She takes advantage of the sympathy of others and mooches off them 'till they grow wise in her ways, then moves on to another patsy.

[+Liquid Gardens]

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

This simply shows a misunderstanding of the nature and purpose of a belief construct.

What specifically shows a misunderstanding?  Quote my specific line you disagree with.  Again, the only misunderstanding seems to be that you believe you are in possession of The One English Dictionary to Rule Them All.

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Where we have evidences we have knowledge

This simply shows a misunderstanding of how we use the word 'evidence', or is a careless conflation of two different things we have/could have knowledge of.  Where we have evidence, we do not necessarily have knowledge of the proposition(s) that evidence supports.  Yes, in the most mundane and irrelevant sense we can say that when we evidence we have knowledge; we have knowledge that a film exists of what is claimed to be Bigfoot, we have knowledge of what that film depicts, we know who supposedly shot the footage, etc.  Duh.  That film is evidence that Bigfoot exists, yet we don't have knowledge that Bigfoot exists.  Thus your quote above should read, 'Where we have evidences, sometimes we have knowledge'.

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

a belief can be totally logically and rationally constructed when there is no evidence either way.

 Eg you can believe there is intelligent life on other planets in the solar system or not,  precisely because there is little or no evidence for either belief

I'm not so sure about that, depends on how you use 'logically' and 'rationally'.  Is it likewise also logical and rational to believe there are intelligent dragons on other planets in the solar system, because there is no evidence concerning it?

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

As far as i am concerned there is less objective evidence for big foot than for gods and angels.

How would you like to measure it?  I don't think you are aware of how many plaster casts of prints of big feet exist, what for angels do we have that counters that volume?  Make sure you don't confuse testimonials with 'objective evidence'. 

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I do not believe that you go to a doctor, without faith that that doctor can heal you

No more than when I drink water I have 'faith' my thirst will disappear.  Why should I ignore all the evidence that exists in those two scenarios?  The fact that it is not decisive evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Evidences are important but trust and faith are what drive us

The word you are looking for there is 'me', not 'us'.  

13 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

So what do you do when faced with a decision where you do not know  ? Nothing? Or act in faith?

Those are not the only alternatives, you can also act based on evidence and probabilities; there is a spectrum, not just the two points 'certainty' and 'faith' as appears to be your view.  I just pulled my car into the garage because the weather people are predicting freezing rain today.  I don't have 'faith' that freezing rain will actually occur, I have a bunch of evidence that it will, and it still may not.  Why do I need faith when I have evidence, namely concerning the general accuracy of meteorology?  I don't need faith to push me from imperfect evidence to a decision, that imperfect information can give me information to make a non-faith-based rational empirical decision.  Let's say someone says to me that if I roll a pair of dice and get anything other than 12, they'll pay me a million dollars, and if I roll a 12 it will cost me one dollar.  If I obviously decide to take that bet, do you think it's based on faith that I'm not going to roll a 12?  What about probability?

Even if you want to somehow call any decision made with less than perfect certainty 'faith', it is still in many ways a different animal than religious faith, as that faith seems to provide people much higher certainty than the kind of faith you are appealing to here.