Faith vs Belief

[panacea]

http://psychrights.org/research/Digest/ ... tfraud.htm

Exactly like a religion, ADD and ADHD haven't been proven and don't have an accurate diagnosing method. This hoax is perpetrated by mass propaganda and the common people 'believing' in it, just like a religion. Millions of people believing in something doesn't make it true, it just creates a feeling of truth inside some weak minded individuals - and they call this faith.

[Kasper]

http://psychrights.org/research/Digest/ ... tfraud.htm

Exactly like a religion, ADD and ADHD haven't been proven and don't have an accurate diagnosing method. This hoax is perpetrated by mass propaganda and the common people 'believing' in it, just like a religion. Millions of people believing in something doesn't make it true, it just creates a feeling of truth inside some weak minded individuals - and they call this faith.

Of course. it's all about faith. In this case, faith that this medicines will cure or help me width symptoms of ADD.

I've discussed about this width you earlier.
But in my opinion, it is weak minded (or at least logical incorrect) to pretend you stand above concepts like, "faith in the truth of something", or "believe that something is true".

I mean, for example this diet, I believe that this diet is the most healthy diet I've heard of.
This is based, on many things like logical consequences, emperical evidence etc. but also on the faith that:
1. RRM did read all those study I didn't read very well, and he made the right conclusions.
2. Those studies Wai is based on are done correctly.
3. Orange juice doesn't contain a undiscovered, or maybe unmeasurable particle, which acts like a time released bomb in great quantities. After drinking more than 40000 L orange juice, you are certain to die within the next 30 years.

And of course many other assumptions, which I assume are true on faith.

Pretending you stand above "faith" and "believe". Pretending something is true, because it's proven.
Pretending you know something is true, instead of believing something is true, is just logical incorrect.

In logic, you can proof a statement X if and only if you have a set of axioms/postulates/assumptions Y which you assume are true.
You can try to proof those axioms, but you need axioms to proof those axioms.
In the best case you can proof something width less axioms than before, but it impossible to proof something without axioms.

Logical incorrect: Statement X is true, because it's proven.
Logical correct: Assuming the set of axioms Y are true, statement X is true. (assuming the proof was logical correct)
Logical correct: Statement X is true in axiomatic system Y.
Incorrect: I know statement X is true, because it's proven.
Logical correct: I believe statement X is true based on the faith that the set of axioms Y are true.

Of course, in daily use of language people use words in different contexts.
For example me, I use the word "know" in contexts where it is logical incorrect to use it
Like: I know this is going to change my life!
Where I actually mean: I have more faith than ever that this is going to change my life!

etc. etc. I think everybody uses this all the time, and I don't care much.
But when people are pretending to be intellectual above someone else etc. I get a little bit angry.
In my opinion it's misusing the humble nature of logic.

I will update about my ADD story so far on a later time, quite much been going on, so will be long post, but I don't have time now.

[panacea]

You're confusing the word 'faith' with 'belief', they are not the same thing, 'faith' is a specific kind of belief, based on superstition/spiritual feelings rather than proof.
Normally, when people believe something, their reasons for believing in it is based on worldly knowledge, experiences, and/or evidence, for example, believing that the Sun will come up tomorrow because we know how the Earth spins and creates this 'sun coming up' illusion. There are of course varying strengths of beliefs - some which are not so concrete, based on little evidence or none, and just faulty human experiences, and more concrete beliefs based on complex combinations of varying evidence points that support the same conclusion (such as all of physics supporting the belief that the Sun will 'come up' again tomorrow).

In laymans terms, all beliefs are not equally full of faith or equal in their estimation.

As far as pretending to stand above concepts like faith, I have no idea what you mean here, unless you are saying that I think I don't have any beliefs which are free of faith, in which case that's partially correct. All of my beliefs that have to do with understanding the world are based on wordly evidence/experiences, and nothing based on superstition or spirituality. But in a few examples, I like most people have some superstitious beliefs that are momentary - such as the fear of some insects. Some insects, like some spiders, I know can't really harm me, but I have an exaggerated fear of them based on superstitious belief that they can in fact do something really harmful to me. The difference of course is that this belief only occurs when there is a spider in the vicinity - if I were to write a list of dangerous living things, I would honestly not even think of common house spiders at all. That's the way the human brain works - sometimes we can't help but to believe erroneously, although this causes little problem to anyone else. If I were to go around spreading this superstitious belief about the exaggerated dangers of ordinary house spiders, then my irrational beliefs might pose a societal problem.. but I don't, and many religious followers do (such as onto their children).