Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jaxword said:
You're the one perpetuating that. You look the other way when your "side" does something stupid, but gladly join in on hating the side you disagree with.
Click to expand...
No. I only rag on an atheist if they're being a jerk. There are atheists around here who are respectful and I have respect for them and talk to them respectfully.
 
Sanky Panky said:
It's the opposite of weakness, if you have absolute certainty that your faith is true. As long as religion is faith-based, people's views will be influenced by the environment that surrounds them. So many environments and life experiences will mean different interpretations. I simply chose to believe in the one where God equals love and wisdom to sacrifice for others. It makes sense to me that this would make the world a better place.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity what denomination are you?

What is your stance on gays and their legal rights?
Do you think it's wrong to send prostitutes to jail instead of helping them out of their crappy situation?
 
Uhhh... my post disappeared. It's at the very top of last page (page 10) originally but for some reason its gone now.

Did I break any rules or something? Why it is disappearing all of the sudden?

...maybe it's just a way someone telling me not-so-subtly that I should stay away from this thread?
 
Sanky Panky said:
It's the opposite of weakness, if you have absolute certainty that your faith is true. As long as religion is faith-based, people's views will be influenced by the environment that surrounds them. So many environments and life experiences will mean different interpretations. I simply chose to believe in the one where God equals love and wisdom to sacrifice for others. It makes sense to me that this would make the world a better place.
Click to expand...

Oh, I believe your faith is strong and not weak, as is the faith of my jewish friends, who do not believe in Jesus and vehemently deny his role as a messiah. But religious beliefs are built on inherently weak foundations. Assumptions. Religious beliefs are based on assumptions. One assumes text book(s) a. is of divine origin and unfalsifiable, one assumes one's interpretations of said text(s) are correct etc.

In science, theories go through their own process of evolution, as our knowledge grows, they change to reflect new data.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convert you or anything. But there are many people who feel as you do, and truly believe they can somehow back up their faith and make it be something it is not...a belief system grounded in facts.
 
Dice said:
There are atheists around here who are respectful and I have respect for them and talk to them respectfully.
Click to expand...

Not all views are worthy of respect. The notion that they should be respected just because they're above a certain threshold of popularity is ridiculous and dangerous.

Laughing Banana said:
Uhhh... my post disappeared. It's at the very top of last page (page 10) originally but for some reason its gone now.

Did I break any rules or something? Why it is disappearing all of the sudden?

...maybe it's just a way someone telling me not-so-subtly that I should stay away from this thread?
Click to expand...

Posts are being deleted. Apparently some things are not meant to be said.
 
Bungalow Bob said:
Why do so many religious people think they have a good reason for believing what they do? And also, why do they often claim that their own magical beliefs are more sophisticated than the magical beliefs of others? I've yet to hear an explanation as to why Christian beliefs, for example, are any more sophisticated than the belief in the Care Bears my sister had when she was 3.

An example of a belief that can be backed up is that it's impossible to know both where something is and how it's moving beyond a specific degree of accuracy. Anybody can check this for themself and then believe it based on reproducible first hand experience.
Click to expand...

You are assuming way to many things, using "so many" or "often" in your statement is not helping your argument.
It's generic, ignorant.
Even worse ignorance when you write about some kind of sensible and reproducible experience to bake up religion.
The fact, then, you use the term "magical beliefs" is indicative of your level of absolute impreparation on even the less, and deprecable form of phychic manipulation, of wich you are an example to be a victim.

You have been so much hypnotized in your mentality that's is impossible to you even to catch what religion is.

To speak about religion with you is a loss of time.
 
Dice said:
No. I only rag on an atheist if they're being a jerk. There are atheists around here who are respectful and I have respect for them and talk to them respectfully.
Click to expand...

Everyone who voices an opinion like a jerk, be it atheist, Christian, Muslim, MLP fans, should be criticized, because no opinion should be untouchable. This is how life should be, if nothing is challenged or critiqued then it never gets its faults pointed out and it stagnates and never changes.

So choosing to only rag on one side is hypocritical and dishonest.
 
Zzoram said:
Out of curiosity what denomination are you?

What is your stance on gays and their legal rights?
Do you think it's wrong to send prostitutes to jail instead of helping them out of their crappy situation?
Click to expand...

what does this have to do with religion? i understand in some religions there are sayings about those topics perhaps, but a religious person can have varied opinions on subjects no? its not like religious ppl are clean of sin and wrong doing.

an atheist person could be for/against gays just as well as a religious one could.
 
Sorc3r3r said:
You are assuming way to many things, using "so many" or "often" in your statement is not helping your argument.
It's generic, ignorant.
Even worse ignorance when you write about some kind of sensible and reproducible experience to bake up religion.
The fact, then, you use the term "magical beliefs" is indicative of your level of absolute impreparation on even the less, and deprecable form of phychic manipulation, of wich you are an example to be a victim.

You have been so much hypnotized in your mentality that's is impossible to you even to catch what religion is.

To speak about religion with you is a loss of time.
Click to expand...

Ok, are you offended that he used the term "magical beliefs". What aspect of religion is NOT magical?
 
Ignis Fatuus said:
Posts are being deleted. Apparently some things are not meant to be said.
Click to expand...

I don't think what I said was out of line in any capacity or form... but perhaps someone thought differently.

Well, I will believe on a good faith (hah!) that whoever did that had a good reason. Even more positively, that reason is for my well-being as well. So, thanks for that, and I will gracefully bow out from this interesting thread.
 
bigboss370 said:
what does this have to do with religion? i understand in some religions there are sayings about those topics perhaps, but a religious person can have varied opinions on subjects no? its not like religious ppl are clean of sin and wrong doing.

an atheist person could be for/against gays just as well as a religious one could.
Click to expand...

Oh I know, anyone can hate anyone, I'm just wondering if he actually practices what he believes.
 
Laughing Banana said:
I don't think what I said was out of line in any capacity or form... but perhaps someone thought differently.

Well, I will believe on a good faith (hah!) that whoever did that had a good reason. Even more positively, that reason is for my well-being as well. So, thanks for that, and I will gracefully bow out from this interesting thread.
Click to expand...

Commentary about administrative actions = off-topic = derailing, that's all.
 
hukasmokincaterpillar said:
What? The fundamental mystery of time and quality hasn't budged since pre-Socratic philosophers brought up the topic. A great mind is a great mind.
Click to expand...

not talking the fundamentals of physics here
and im actually surprised that people actually took it that way
correct me if im wrong but he wasnt exactly an evolutionary biologist

and it makes no sense for believers to use him as a figurehead

Great minds of old may have had close to 100% religious affiliation
Its almost completely reversed now

Ignis Fatuus said:
With faster than light neutrinos, but that's besides the point.
Click to expand...

good point lol
 
Ignis Fatuus said:
Posts are being deleted. Apparently some things are not meant to be said.
Click to expand...

NjbqR.png
 
Ignis Fatuus said:
Not all views are worthy of respect. The notion that they should be respected just because they're above a certain threshold of popularity is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with that. If you openly insult someone's views and say it's because you believe their views are shit, then you are still showing them dignity as a person. When you take on backhanded ways of asking disingenuous questions that you know don't apply to the person you're asking and then act like you have no idea why they might not like it, that's disrespecting them as a person. That is what I have a problem with.

Really, why is it that some just can't resist playing passive-aggressive games insulting others with the way they engage them? Zaptruder has made many posts here and done pretty well about it. And as I said at the start of the thread, I like the way Monocle does things. Have you seen his posts? He never sugarcoats anything, but he also doesn't say things in such a way as to belittle others because of their beliefs.
 
I've never understood why religious people can get so upset at atheists. I mean, the vast majority of religious people out here in the western world are christian, so don't I go to hell when I die in their model of the universe? So why get upset when we attack their religion? Must you rule on earth and in heaven? Can't atheists catch a break and be smug somewhere in reality?
 
Zzoram said:
Oh I know, anyone can hate anyone, I'm just wondering if he actually practices what he believes.
Click to expand...

'practice' is irrelevant, its not like he's obliged to or takes any action on the topics. he just has an opinion. nobody, well, almost nobody wholly practice what they believe. religious people do non-religious stuff all the time.

what he believes may not even have a specific denomination. He could just believe in the existence of a God. in which case his views on gays and prostitutes would be non related, and only opinion based.
 
Dice said:
I'm fine with that. If you openly insult someone's views and say it's because you believe their views are shit, then you are still showing them dignity as a person. When you take on backhanded ways of asking disingenuous questions that you know don't apply to the person you're asking and then act like you have no idea why they might not like it, that's disrespecting them as a person. That is what I have a problem with.

Really, why is it that some just can't resist playing passive-aggressive games insulting others with the way they engage them? Zaptruder has made many posts here and done pretty well about it. And as I said at the start of the thread, I like the way Monocle does things. Have you seen his posts? He never sugarcoats anything, but he also doesn't say things in such a way as to belittle others because of their beliefs.
Click to expand...

I never called anyone a dick. The way I worded my questions highlights the absurdity of religious faiths. I did not mock anyone personally. It is not a personal insult, which is what apparently think it is.
 
Log4Girlz said:
The way I worded my questions highlights the absurdity of religious faiths. I did not mock anyone personally.
Click to expand...
No. That's how such questions work in a book, but in a live discussion with others, it personally mocks whoever it is directed to.
 
Atheists can never not come off as jerks because criticizing someone's faith is always perceived as a personal attack. It's a part of their identity being challenged.
 
Dice said:
No. That's how such questions work in a book, but in a live discussion with others, it personally mocks whoever it is directed to.
Click to expand...

Calling someone ignorant, foolish or childish is a personal insult. Calling their beliefs ignorant, foolish, childish is not a personal insult. Unless of course you are speaking to someone who is inherently immature in real life. I have spoken to people who have no problems with me asking such questions of them (I went at length with comparing God to Leprechauns with a very faithful jewish man, we had fun with our conversation), and there are people that feel they have been stabbed when their God is compared to any other fictional creature. Who cares what the latter think? I choose not to engage them in face to face live discussions. Here on GAF, I think everyone grown up enough not to see that as a personal insult directed at them...its directed at their faith.
 
Dice said:
No. That's how such questions work in a book, but in a live discussion with others, it personally mocks whoever it is directed to.
Click to expand...

I think you're being subjective and also calling for censorship to spare the feelings of those who hold irrational views. If people who pay for fortune tellers and feng shui are worthy of mockery, so too should any peddler of superstition.

The problem is not just the views. The problem is that people choose to hold them, and for this they are personally liable.
 
Sanky Panky said:
Yes on the Jesus story, and I actually don't believe in the God portrayed in the Old Testament. My faith is entirely based on how Jesus described God to be, because it makes the most sense to me. That's a judgement I have made, just how many scientists have used judgement to pick the most plausible story for how we came to be (even if they can't prove it).

I see other religions as having their own spin on the same deity, and those can be explained by the contexts in which they were interpreted (the God of the old testament being a vengeful God and protective of the jewish people i.e.). God according to Jesus is universal, and about Love. That is what makes sense to me, but then again, I don't have to back up my faith.


Do it. I promise to not make a thread asking you to back it up.
Click to expand...
When scientists use their intuitions to try and see if a hypothetical item really exists, they don't just decide that whatever their gut instincts tell them is true must be true. In science, an assumption is used to explore "what if?" scenarios, to span gaps in current understanding in order to examine a problem from a fresh vantage point and see if the view yields fresh testable insights. Scientific assumptions are not free-floating bubbles of certainty enshrined as knowledge as soon as they're formed.

Critical to understanding how science really works is to realize that scientists' assumptions are just temporary scaffolds, usually built up from the firm ground of well-established theory. To what degree scientists consider an assumption plausible depends on how well the story it tells fits the available evidence and contributes to accurate predictions.
 
Sanky Panky said:
The point is to claim unicorns are referenced in the Bible, therefore are in equal footing with the story of Jesus
Click to expand...
No, it's not.
It doesn't matter whether or not unicorns are referenced in the bible specifically. The point was that they (and all kinds of magical creatures) are referenced in texts that never said anything about being fictitious, quite on the contrary.
The christian god is referenced in old and supposedly accurate accounts? So are magical creatures such as unicorns. And other gods, such as Zeus or Thor.
So how are they not on equal footing? What's the difference?

I'm glad to see you turn around, and affirm to all of us that it is plausible for unicorns to exist. So nice of you to explain that since we know horses and mutation exist, there might be a chance of them being out there.
Click to expand...
Except the example was about the supposedly magical unicorns, not mutant horses with horns. As has been proposed already, replace the unicorns with fairies if that makes it clearer for you.

since many people have already found historical evidence for God
Click to expand...
There is no "historical evidence of god". If I write a book about leprechauns and claim it's all true, should 25th century people consider that "historical evidence of the existence of leprechauns"?
By that logic, there would be "historical evidence" for a lot of different gods. So... they all exist? How would that even work?

Sanky Panky said:
You give scientists too much credit. They too look at pieces to a puzzle and try to arrive at the most plausible scenario. They don't empirically test or even try to replicate their stories, they just try to look for more corroborating observations (just like me).
Click to expand...
Clearly, you don't know how science works.
 
You keep trying to spin this into a more generalized context. That may have been the intention but it was not the direction. Let's get back to the specific turning point.

Now, does god ride a unicorn, or is he a unicorn. Or is he some sort of centaur half-god/half-unicorn.
Click to expand...
When you know that no one here believes that, it's rude. Also yes, it is clearly directed to simply anyone who believes in God. Go ahead and have conversation about comparing God to unicorns, I don't see a problem with the original stuff of that, but this is projecting onto others and that is disrespectful to them. When you were told that it was condescending, you only went on further feigning ignorance of others beliefs, which is doubly insulting.
 
Dice said:
You keep trying to spin this into a more generalized context. That may have been the intention but it was not the direction. Let's get back to the specific turning point.

When you know that no one here believes that, it's rude. Also yes, it is clearly directed to simply anyone who believes in God. Go ahead and have conversation about comparing God to unicorns, I don't see a problem with the original stuff of that, but this is projecting onto others and that is disrespectful to them. When you were told that it was condescending, you only went on further feigning ignorance of others beliefs, which is doubly insulting.
Click to expand...

Its not rude or disrespectful to anyone. Who did I disrespect, who is unicorn god disrespectful towards? People who have a more modern view of a god? How is that personally insulting? The concept I described and what others believe as their god are on equal footing.
 
Clearly not on equal footing to them, so projecting that onto them is rude. It's entirely different from expressing how it is your belief that they are on equal footing. Seriously, how can you not get this?
 
Dice said:
Clearly not on equal footing to them, so projecting that on to them is rude. It's entirely different from expressing how it is your belief that they are on equal footing. Seriously, how can you not get this?
Click to expand...

I do not get how you equate that to personal insult. It is not. I did not imply that people who believe in a god believe in one who rides a unicorn or is part unicorn, only that their belief is on equal footing.
 
Dice said:
When you know that no one here believes that, it's rude.
Click to expand...
As a means of ridiculing others that believe other things you mean? It's just a literary device, really. It could be easily adapted too:

Does The Father create the Son and the Holy Spirit, or is he The Son and the Holy Spirit? Or is he some Father/Son/Holy Spirit 'centaur'?

I'm sorry that it's so easy to ridicule religion, but it would be helpful if you could argue why the ridicule os wrong instead of expressing that you're offended.
 
Dice said:
Clearly not on equal footing to them, so projecting that onto them is rude. It's entirely different from expressing how it is your belief that they are on equal footing. Seriously, how can you not get this?
Click to expand...

Science isn't open to subjective reasoning. Unicorns and religion are on equal footing in terms of scientific data backing them. Would bigfoot work better? Because there are a lot of people that currently believe bigfoot is real without any scientific backing.
 
Log4Girlz said:
Its not rude or disrespectful to anyone. Who did I disrespect, who is unicorn god disrespectful towards? People who have a more modern view of a god? How is that personally insulting? The concept I described and what others believe as their god are on equal footing.
Click to expand...
My imaginary unicorn god is better than yours because she has a dildo on her head instead of a horn. I like to glue silver dollars to the sidewalk and visualize her charging people who try to pick them up.
 
Im not insulted by unicorns. They are nifty.
Im also sure that they would be insulted by this association. I can tell from the hoofprints and seeing quite a few unicorns in my time.
The simple truth is, we are all unicorns in denial.
 
Log4Girlz said:
I do not get how you equate that to personal insult. It is not. I did not imply that people who believe in a god believe in one who rides a unicorn or is part unicorn, only that their belief is on equal footing.
Click to expand...
No, the phrasing did place it onto whoever is being asked. It's disrespectful because it is projecting onto them a viewpoint that they don't hold about something that matters to them. It's like this:

"Why do you want to fuck your sister? Because of her tight, round ass?"
"What?! I don't want to fuck my sister. She is my sister. That's sick."
"It's okay that you want to fuck your sister. I mean, I do, she's hot."

To me, it's the same difference with your unicorn questions. Have your views, but don't put it on others.
 
Dice said:
No, the phrasing did place it onto whoever is being asked. It's disrespectful because it is projecting onto them a viewpoint that they don't hold about something that matters to them. It's like this:

"Why do you want to fuck your sister? Because of her tight, round ass?"
"What?! I don't want to fuck my sister. She is my sister. That's sick."
"It's okay that you want to fuck your sister. I mean, I do, she's hot."

To me, it's the same difference with your unicorn questions. Have your views, but don't put it on others.
Click to expand...

you lost me at sister
 
CiSTM said:
They have not yet be proven to be true though. We will have to wait for more tests and results but more likely the neutrinos weren't travelling faster then speed of light.
Click to expand...

While I also think they'll find out that the neutrinos didn't travel faster than light, I really hope that they DID travel faster than light.

It would be much more exciting for physics, and open up prospects for FTL travel to explore space.
 
Dice said:
Clearly not on equal footing to them, so projecting that onto them is rude. It's entirely different from expressing how it is your belief that they are on equal footing. Seriously, how can you not get this?
Click to expand...
The entire point was to provide them with an example of an(other) unproven supernatural entity that one would assume they don't believe in (unicorn, fairy, Thor...), ask them to take a hard look at it and at their god, and then have them explain why they shouldn't be on equal footing.
So no, they would not consider them to be on equal footing. Yes, they would most likely find the idea of believing in unicorns/fairies/Thor ridiculous. But then again, that's the entire point in the first place. It would be my turn to say "seriously, how can you not get this?", here, really...
 
Dice said:
No, the phrasing did place it onto whoever is being asked. It's disrespectful because it is projecting onto them a viewpoint that they don't hold about something that matters to them. It's like this:

"Why do you want to fuck your sister? Because of her tight, round ass?"
"What?! I don't want to fuck my sister. She is my sister. That's sick."
"It's okay that you want to fuck your sister. I mean, I do, she's hot."

Same difference to your unicorn questions to me. Have your views, but don't put it on others.
Click to expand...

My phrasing is not equivalent. If I had said

"Christians are fucking ridiculous, they believe the messiah will return on a unicorn"
"I can't believe that Christians believe in a Unicorn GOD LOL"
"Mohammed rode to Mecca on a unicorn!"


Then you may have a point.

I am directly projecting beliefs on specific people. A silly belief at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Do you think trauma can be passed on genetically?
2
65
1K
Kamina replied
How often do you think about dying?
Cringe  2
57
845
ForAcademicPurposes replied
Can we do like a Reverse Gold?
25
699
Days like these... replied
Why the f is Reddit so rigid?
2 3
113
3K
Toots replied
I think my girlfriend is cheating on me , should i just break up with her ?
2 3 4 5 6
270
2K
ConkerTheSquirrel. replied
Top Bottom