To be fair, you sometimes seem to spend more time critiquing these threads than you do contributing to them.
Now I'm guilty of critiquing you critiquing threads because I have nothing relevant to add.
huh.
Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?
- Thread starter Bungalow Bob
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, you sometimes seem to spend more time critiquing these threads than you do contributing to them.
Now I'm guilty of critiquing you critiquing threads because I have nothing relevant to add.
huh.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
That is a fair point, and I think it's usually because by the time I find these threads they have spiraled so far out of control that I don't feel like it is even possible for me to contribute anything particularly meaningful to them. Perhaps that's just an overly pessimistic interpretation based on my personality but it's there nonetheless. So, I do what's easiest for us as humans, I criticize.
Point taken, though.
Anyway, I really would like to get some discussion started on that book. I found it very interesting and I haven't seen any good responses to it from the atheist side of the fence.
Eugenics isn't good science so the point is entirely moot.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
One of my favorite posters on GAF right here
Ooh, does this mean that we get to use the qualifier that fundamentalism isn't "good" religion and therefore cannot be used in an argument against the concept??
basically
Nope. Science had the good sense to define itself usefully. Eugenics is bad science because it's wrong, whereas religion has no qualms with that.
The USA were not founded by Christians. There's your answer.
We cannot discuss the quality of a religion as being "good" or "bad", seeing we cannot say with certainty "This is what God wants".
When it comes to religious beliefs, they should all be kept on equal footing, seeing there is nothing to show one is truer than the other.
Some are better, or less violent than others, but we cannot give the peaceful ones a free pass for being irrational.
Wait, do you mean wrong as in 'it doesn't stand up to scientific rigour', or wrong as in 'morally wrong'? If you mean the latter then science never defines itself in that way, why would it?
The former, of course! Science is a strict, defined process whereas religion is a bit nebulous and extremely fluid.
FlawlessCowboy
Member
Another thread on GAF devoted towards denigrating people of faith?
How original.
How original.
Without addressing anyone in particular, I'd like to mention a few logical fallacies seen several times in this thread:
Argumentum ad populum: the belief that something is more correct because lots of people believe in it. This is invalid reasoning.
Argument from antiquity: the belief that something is more correct because it is ancient, traditional, or old. This is invalid reasoning.
Argument from authority: the belief that something is more correct because an important figure says it is. This is invalid reasoning.
Argumentum ad ignoratium: the belief that something is true because it has not yet been proven false. This is invalid reasoning.
None of these fallacies of logic prove that there is no God -- there very well could be -- just that the arguments being used by some posters in here are wrong. For example, if I believed that the speed of light is 3x10^8 M/sec, and I said the reason this is true is because my Mom told me it was true, then my reasoning is wrong, even if my conclusion happens to be correct.
To follow this through, using Christianity as our example religion (since that is likely the most common religion on this forum), Christianity is not more likely to be correct simply because many people believe in it. Further, it is not more likely to be correct because the New Testament is 2000 years old. Even further, it is not more likely to be correct because the Pope says it is. Or because Barack Obama says it is. Lastly, it is not more likely to be correct because we can't disprove it.
Again, for emphasis: this does not mean that Christianity is incorrect, just that if it is correct, it's not because of these reasons.
Argumentum ad populum: the belief that something is more correct because lots of people believe in it. This is invalid reasoning.
Argument from antiquity: the belief that something is more correct because it is ancient, traditional, or old. This is invalid reasoning.
Argument from authority: the belief that something is more correct because an important figure says it is. This is invalid reasoning.
Argumentum ad ignoratium: the belief that something is true because it has not yet been proven false. This is invalid reasoning.
None of these fallacies of logic prove that there is no God -- there very well could be -- just that the arguments being used by some posters in here are wrong. For example, if I believed that the speed of light is 3x10^8 M/sec, and I said the reason this is true is because my Mom told me it was true, then my reasoning is wrong, even if my conclusion happens to be correct.
To follow this through, using Christianity as our example religion (since that is likely the most common religion on this forum), Christianity is not more likely to be correct simply because many people believe in it. Further, it is not more likely to be correct because the New Testament is 2000 years old. Even further, it is not more likely to be correct because the Pope says it is. Or because Barack Obama says it is. Lastly, it is not more likely to be correct because we can't disprove it.
Again, for emphasis: this does not mean that Christianity is incorrect, just that if it is correct, it's not because of these reasons.
EDIT: Great post Opiate.
"How can people who believe in X be so sure of this belief?"
Omiting the agressive stance in the OP, I don't think this question autimatically denigrates people who believe in X. It invites people to come share to the skeptics the reasons they believe.
"How can people who believe in X be so sure of this belief?"
Omiting the agressive stance in the OP, I don't think this question autimatically denigrates people who believe in X. It invites people to come share to the skeptics the reasons they believe.
This is all true, of course, but it makes little sense to hold value to something simply because a few misunderstand it. There are indeed strength in numbers when discussing abstract things such as faith, opinion, emotions, & whatnot. Those aren't tied to a particular religion like Christianity EDIT- or right or wrong.
So there's no particular reason to put weight to something on the basis of someone else not grasping the the functionality. In other words, the beliefs may not be able to be validated even as the faith is easily validated & understandable to those who have it- even if it's just one person, much more so when it's the majority of the population across myriads of faiths.
This one requires a bit of a clarification.
There are situations in which arguments from authority provide a little strength to the argument - specifically in cases where people that are an authority of the subject matter are cited.
It's best to provide the point that the authority was making as well as their evaluation on it to make the point in an argument though.
In arguments, essentially this kind of stuff acts like a hyper linking argument; trusting in the authority of the person who studies the field, the other party is then able to follow the line of reasoning and thinking made by the authority and evalute it for its validity. Ideally, you'd be able to just paraphrase the argument itself, but sometimes, been the limited creatures we are, we can't follow the entire line of logic and thinking behind their conclusion - we simply trust in their authority on the subject matter of discussion.
In cases where authority is not an authority of a subject matter been discussed; as with the ever popular Einstein and God, it is an erroneous line of inquiry.
My years on this forum have shown me that while GAF preaches ( no pun intended lmao) tolerance of all, it is by far a very intolerant place. I have no such desire to subject to it anymore than I have.
And of all places, here. LOL
Lionheart1337
Member
GAF has never been accepting of and has never professed acceptance for all ideas.
You read into GAF what you want. All I know is that GAF is an internet community, and in any community, internet or not, you're going to get a wide range of opinions and thoughts.
I've seen plenty of GAFfers accuse GAF of one thing, while another GAFfer accuses GAF of the opposite thing.
If you can point out the incongruence of any particular GAFfer, you're welcome to call out that person and have a beef with them. The rest of us will get our pop-corn and watch.
Yeah I agree. Cause Christianity was sure the best when those Dark Ages rolled around and those silly Arab nations were all Golden Aging it up. Good point
LOL @ all these religious debates. I feel "bad" constantly shitting on religious people but at the same time stop affecting politics and holding everyone back with your crap.
Edit: Really Casp0r? Christian nations flourish b/c of Christ? Not because of centuries of conquest and exploitation?
Edit: Really Casp0r? Christian nations flourish b/c of Christ? Not because of centuries of conquest and exploitation?
Dave be a living legend.
Pixel Pete
Member
Forgive me, for I have sinned. I had to abandon our lord saviour the Flying Spaghetti Monster when I went paleo =[
That's astoundingly terrible advice. Seriously, DON'T question? Seriously? We, as a civilization might as well give up right now if the majority think this.
Then PM me, I won't respond, I'm just curious.
Can't help it, AzureNightmare's argument to not question things was very compelling.
A bold prediction.
If conforming to the ideals of forgiveness, tolerance and love is a prerequisite for being Christian, can the US then even be considered an enduring Christian nation at all considering its consistent involvement in war, continued use of the death penalty, past and present discrimination against various subgroups, holding prisoners for years without charge or trial, and sanctions it poses on nations with opposing views?
Thanks for acknowledging that aspect of your presented argument was incorrect.
Who are you to say what is good and what is not? The Chinese regime considers themselves good within the context of their society.
Regardless, part of your argument suggested success and endurance were limited to Christian nations. They are not.
Aspects of the morality you associate with "good" are not exclusive to Christianity.
Again, this flies in the face of your argument that nations must be underpinned explicitly by Christianity. If you are shifting the argument to say that nations adopting forgiveness, tolerance, and love will be successful, then you should recognise that those attributes can be obtained without a foundation of Christianity, or even any religion at all.
You tried to discount the success of modern China by suggesting it was built on the markets of predominantly Christian nations.
If you are going to apply that argument, then you should recognise that the US and Europe are dependent on foreign oil sourced mainly from predominantly Islamic countries. Without that supply of oil, the US and other nations would face economic and industrial collapse.
Again, "forgiveness, tolerance and love" are not the exclusive property of Christianity.
Japan is not a "Christian nation".
You are exercising a double standard. Apparently bad things happening in modern China means their success can be discounted. But bad things happening in Christian nations is "shit happens". You can't have it both ways.
You discredit the success of non Christian nations on the basis of how they were built and how they act. Why are predominantly Christian nations not held to the same standard?
Indeed, while we are here, can you attribute the success of the US to Christianity when its history includes the exploitation of natives, slave labour, and war that it used to achieve economic and social objectives?
It speaks against you calling out bad things happening under other philosophies when "bad things" happen under predominantly Christian nations too.
Uh, India is flourishing. They are dramatically improving their economy and standard of living, at one of the fastest rates on the planet. They are not a "Christian nation".
"No true Scotsman".
The Westboro Baptist Church meets the definition of being Christian whether you or other Chrtisians like it or not. And as pointed out, they, amongst the thousands of different interpretations of the Bible might have the right one. How would you know any differently?
As I said before, the success of Christian nations are only an indication of the message, ideals, and laws allowing for a level of success. Indeed, part of your definition of success is that they practise Christian morality which is in itself a circular argument.
How exactly?
The success and failure of individual nations is far more complex than you are suggesting.
Is the demonization of gay people, something many Christian sects consider part of the doctrine, a suggestion that it is not "practically perfect"? Where does such discrimination fit into your view?
You are happily skipping over the "non Christian" methods that "Christian" nations used to obtain power and longevity. You are ignoring the "non Christian" activity that allows many of these nations to remain in power. You are also ignoring external factors that are contributing to the situation, while trying to discount the success of past and present "non Christian" nations.
There are far to many holes for you to try and cover over here.
And even then, it still doesn't offer any "proof" of the validity of the claims of the Bible or Christianity.
So, in other words, you actually offer no proof that the supernatural claims of Christianity such as the existance of God or the divinity of Jesus at all?
Count Dookkake
Member
I find it interesting when people who plead for special protection for the feelings of the religious don't apply that to other types of groups.
You want to feel persecution? Say something nice about Lucas.
You want to feel persecution? Say something nice about Lucas.
thats hardly persecution though
Count Dookkake
Member
Lucas is almost a metaphor for religion
hes done some good things in the past
but hes long overstayed his welcome, and makes money off of idiots with his nonsense
star wars 3d = new testament
Count Dookkake
Member
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
Jesus walked on this earth. That is a concrete reason as to why Christian beliefs are, at least, more sophisticated than your sister's belief in the Care Bears.
Betta Lines
Member
I wonder what percentage of the team working at CERN are religious.
Ok, so Jesus physically lived. So did Mohammed. What is the next line of reasoning...that everything attributed to them is factual because they existed?
Count Dookkake
Member
Chuck Norris then.
I agree with you. Belief in Mohammed is more sophisticated than belief in the Care Bears.
The OP made a ridiculous statement, so it's receiving the proper response.
if there is more than a single token believer id be concerned
Well shit, my parents were right and everything about Santa Claus is true then.
I think it was an over simplification of a justified line of reasoning, but you did give an appropriate answer.
Edited.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true.
Angry Fork
Member
So you're basically admitting to not using logic/reason for something that is a huge, essential part of your life?
This is why people think religion is dangerous, it's the complete anti-thesis to free thought and inquiry. I can't possibly imagine how someone could cage themselves up like this. I first feel really sad for such people but then become scared soon after. This is why people do or say evil things in the name of God, because they 'just have faith'. Nobody can ever combat that with an argument so there's no possible negotiation or back and forth. It's really demented. I wish I could live to see the day when this stone age thinking will be done with.
Count Dookkake
Member
Works as a subtitle for your avatar.
To what?
- Status