>Faith lacks evidence. One can't actually apply fact to
>faith. It's believing without seeing, without grasping,
>without fully understanding. To attempt to explain it is a
>fallacy because one could never understand something it has no
>full grasp of.

That's the central issue with faith: that it relies on nothing of actual substance. This isn't necessarily problematic in a vacuum, but the problem is that beliefs do not exist in a vacuum, and our beliefs drive our decisions in the real world.

So if your faith in a particular god drives your overall worldview, and that worldview drives the way you vote, for example, on things like whether or not two people of the same sex can get married, or a woman's right to choose, that's problematic.

If someone is going to decide that their faith in a particular being, and thus the rules and regulations handed down by said being, should be applied not only to oneself as an individual, but to others they share this world with, then their faith is an insufficient foundation to press those views on the rest of us.

>Logic is limited. One can apply logic but with so much
>misunderstood, logic only accomplishes to box in instances
>that allow one to grasp a concept. On many occasions, logic
>has needed to be re-written and adjusted because new
>circumstances or evidence has been introduced.

Going to circle back on this point.

>As humans, we
>only know we exist here and have figured out minute insights
>into the vastness of this grand existence we sludge through.
>So things we deem logical today, could be illogical tomorrow.

I'd like you to expound on this, if you don't mind.

>To that same premise, logic varies from person to person and
>is only levied as acceptable on a few common principles
>(4>3).

I'd say logic is being used rather loosely, and I think "logic vs faith" is potentially a false dichotomy. I'm not sure it's faith vs logic at all. I'd say the actual dichotomy is faith vs evidence.

>I say, "I'm buying insurance just in case something bad
>happens."
>You say, "That's a waste of money as most people don't
>experience enough bad that simply saving that money for such
>occasions wouldn't satisfy."

>In the end, those that believe in Faith (God) are saying, I
>want to be prepared, just in case.

Here's the thing: That insurance policy actual exists, and the terms are clearly written and understood by both parties. You pay X in return for Y in the event of circumstances a, b, and c.

There is no faith involved. There is no mystery to solve.

Further, this insurance policy is specific not in terms of what is covered and under what circumstances, though there may be holes in certain places.

There's a business office for the insurance company, a name to attach the sales person, a paper trail to follow for the payments you've made, terms and conditions, the whole nine.

Further, we can look at tangible numbers, can we not?

I.e, how often do people actually have to make claims on, say, renters insurance.

Lastly, insurance is clearly meant to be just that: Insurance.

It's entire purpose is "just in case", and there is a definite in what you get for your payment for that "just in case". There's a contract. Sure, it's not airtight. Imperfect.

But purchasing insurance is the definitive opposite of faith, because there are checks and balances and verification in place for both parties.

The prospect of faith in a god is that said god *might* or *could* be true, but is much more akin to buying a lottery ticket in actuality.

To keep this practical, if person A makes this choice, and keeps this faith within themselves, cool. But the second person A uses said faith, regardless of the reasoning behind said faith, to imposes laws and rules upon others, that's a no-go.

And that's just once facet of how and why faith can be extremely problematic.

>Those that believe in logic are saying, life is short, focus
>on the tangible and provable.

I'll expound on this. My break is ending soon so I may need to come back to it.

But in general, we go with what we know, believers and non believers alike. The vast majority of theists who had cancer and then went into remission and attribute said remission to god, also went to doctors and underwent treatment.

The vast majority of believers in a god get up and go to work, clock in and out, and get a paycheck, though they'll attribute that income to their particular god.

I do have some more nuanced thoughts on this though, because while I do see certain situations where faith can be beneficial, I still see that in and of itself as a massive net negative. But I'll expound further.

>Whatever happens after this
>life is beyond our knowledge and control.

Agreed. I don't think faith in anything actually changes this though.

>My theory is, use logic to try to understand what's in front
>of you, use faith to guide you to remain grounded and respect
>what's beyond you.

>Both are ultimately used to control morality and preserve
>humanity, faith is a bit better at it than logic.

I'll have to circle back on these points. Break's about up, but I have a lot to say on the morality issue. I'd love to hear your thoughts in response to what I've addressed thus far though.