Which is???

As it pertains to Christians, the assertion that Christians use "faith-based thinking" rather than traditional reasoning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/video/2007/dec/09/video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1hFW_z75IRo

... The above videos are about the unfathomable human abuses, even to toddlers, that have developed in Africa due to the direct affiliation with and influence from the religious bigotry that is passed on to cultures who have little understanding of the history of Western civilization or little to no education regarding the modern world.

In other parts of Africa, Western evangelical missionaries who left their own countries as defeated soldiers in their anti-gay war, have taken their religious extremism as propaganda to the political arena of governments who are struggling between values of human rights and religious moral code that was left to them from the Western colonialism of 100 year ago.

The behaviors noted are ATROCITIES and they are not, strictly speaking, totally the fault of those perpetrating physical harm and mental abuse, for such things have been taught to these people as part of a religion.

Over one hundred years since Western colonialism in Africa and this is what has progressed through religious extremism originally developed by governments to rally support for the colonization effort.

One piece of propaganda certainly took hold and it seems obvious that the "White man's burden" is still a dominating force in the call of the evangelical missionaries to Africa.
Bringing Western religious extremism with its Western bigotry into theologically colonized third world communities and countries seems to make those who cannot force their religious morals into the laws of modern thinking countries feel like they are accomplishing their (un)godly mission after all.

What most of those evangelical missionaries have done should be considered a crime no less worthy of the world’s distain than the crimes of Hitler and Stalin, or more currently the Sudanese government & Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for allowing ethnic cleansing to continue in Sudan.

In my opinion, every country should put a ban on religious missionary visa's and it should be a crime for any religious person from one country to go to another for the purpose of spreading their gospel to the political elite or social elite of that country.
This is how the ‘disorder’ of ‘Religious Fundamentalism’ spreads throughout the world. This is another reason why it needs to be explored. The suicide bombers are another example of religious extremism.

Check out this link:

http://www.atheistmedia.com/2010/05/sharmeen-obaid-chinoy-inside-school-for.html
WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2010
Inside A School For Suicide Bombers | TED2010


And by the way: I do not suggest that missions of mercy be abandoned? Absolutely not, but let those who have a religious conviction leave it behind when they choose to put their merciful altruistic foot forward.

The pastors who conduct such rituals are non-denominational, and most have no theological training, says Matondo Kasese of the humanitarian group Reejer.

I never asserted that. Sorry.

Absolutely it is! I stated that people will gravitate to the side with the best reasoning and he said (essentially) that "No they won't agree with the non-faith side, because they are brain washed." In other words, if they go to the non-faith side, it's because they are thinking and if they don't go to the non-faith side, it's because they are brain washed. Either way, his assumption is that the non-faith side is right. This is begging the question.

Having faith is completely trusting in the truthfulness of a source. It is having no doubt that the source is truthful.

Oh geeze. Okay. I guess you changed your mind between making this post and the one right before it.

Creative said this:



Really?

I don't think faith is simply a matter of trust in the truthfulness of a source.

I have perfect faith in what is, but not much faith in any particular individual source.

Not in the your own ability to understand the way things are?

Have faith in what... truth?

I would think that by and in large JB, you have a relatively good grasp of the way things are.

That is not begging the question spider. If it were, stating anything at all during a debate would be begging the question, assuming honest testimony. We all think that our beliefs are true and when they conflict with anothers, as in if one is the negation of the other, then we all think that the others' is wrong.

I suggest you brush up a little on your knowledge of fallacy.

As I've already said spider, everyone is not moved equally by equal evidence. Thus, just because the evidence supports one position or the other, it does not mean that "people will move to your side of the aisle."

You're the one who is affirming the consequent.

The continued existence of religious fundamental extremists who deny scientific evidence simply because is conflicts with the Bible clearly show that your claim is false.

I rest my case.