I see.. You cannot understand what I am saying and instead of asking for clarification you instead insult. Which logical fallacy is that?
Perhaps the one you used, in saying, "Or maybe you can’t comprehend that...
But really that was no fallacy, as there was an argument presented to point out why that statement was made.
I have not said the Earth is 6000 years old. I did not say humankind is 6000 years old. Some RELIGIOUS people have added supposed ages and come to that amt. Again, you take the section of meaning of “faith” as belief in a doctrine or teachings NOT belief in what cannot be proved, or faith in a God. I am NOT talking about any of your supposed proofs that are aimed at the Bible or interpretations of it.
Okay, so in another topic you showed that faith “may not be needed” according to or against some dude named Conway. Again that is arguing about what some dude said or ascribes to.
Even the claim that all of the systems COULD have all happened by chance is still debating doctrine and teaching not faith. See, you use it to reinforce your idea that there is no god and everything happened by chance or trial and error maybe. It does not preclude ME from having faith and belief that God set those systems in place. It does not eliminate what I believe, but can be seen as a way that YOU have to make sense of the world.
As for your “CONTEXT!”
Again, you say your arguments against ‘faith” That is your words your context. Read it and you see what I am saying. You are choking out “the weak roots of the religious brainwashing”. That sir is DOCTRINE AND TEACHING not faith. You cannot be erasing faith as it is not provable so also not disprovable. So, clearly you must use DOCTRINE AND TEACHING, while ignoring the rest of the definition of faith as believe in what cannot be proved, or faith in a God. Even “religious brainwashing” cannot create real “faith” but rather just a brainwashed follower. If that is what you think you are doing then I guess you cannot actually understand faith. If you cannot then there is no need to continue. I had assumed (possibly incorrectly) that since you say you once were a Christian that you once had faith. It seems that may not be the case.
Before once again saying that I am taking you out of context, try and see what I said and not just the drive to “win” at any cost.
Ah, I see the No True Scotsman Fallacy
"I've come to lose faith," said one.
"Then you never had TRUE Faith," said the one committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
"I've set out to make people question their faith in god," said one.
"You can't upset TRUE faith, or it wasn't really faith in god," said the one committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Again, my use of the word faith is used in relation to a faith, or trusting, in absurd ideas, which lack convincing and tangible evidence. If there are naturalistic alternative explanations that are just as valid or more valid than the supernatural ones, then why needlessly employ some invisible god? Again, Occam's Razor.
Sure, you can make sense of it, in your own mind, with some miracle working god, but why employ a god where there's an equally valid naturalistic explanation that doesn't have to employ some invisible manlike deity behind the scenes? Now, if you say your god is nature itself, then I won't charge you with an anthropomorphic interpretation, which humans often commit in ignorance.