god
Why do so many theists think they can back up their faith?
- Thread starter Bungalow Bob
- Start date
- Status
god
I never stated what my personal beliefs are. But it's just humorous to see those who take such issue with faith in a higher power, and faith in general, not realize the irony in how often they themselves rely on it.
please tell me how I rely on it
Peasant Princess-King
Member
Maybe you just haven't talked to someone who has truly evaluated their theological beliefs. There are some people I know who I would definitely consider intelligent that believe in God. One guy, in particular, who is studying for masters in Math and Comp Sci who is well-versed in many philosophocal studies who is a Catholic. After listening to him at length about why he believes there is a God, being very respectful about his opinion and providing even empirical, psychological and philosophical examples for his conclusions, I can honestly say ,that after challenging his own beliefs thoroughly, I can expect his decision.
I don't feel like I am at that point in my life to put my foot down and say for myself whether there is a God or not, so I am fairly unbiased and I also play Devil's Advocate in these types of discussions.
I don't feel like I am at that point in my life to put my foot down and say for myself whether there is a God or not, so I am fairly unbiased and I also play Devil's Advocate in these types of discussions.
Would you share some of these? I mean, its been claimed so many times and nobody has backed it up thus far so im interested to see what his evidence and examples were.
Was he indoctrinated to be Catholic since birth?
GhaleonQ
Member
It's been written by others, but the point (for most of us) is not that Christianity is "correct" any more than Christian existentialism or socialism or property rights or divine right or freedom of expression are "correct." The standard that Christianity has to meet is 1 of compulsion (for the self) or defensibility (for others).
Many, many people have provided "good reasons" for belief throughout history.
For some in the topic, their implicity agreeing with my definition and not yours. You're right for most religions, of course, if they use your definition of truth.
whats up with the vague references
we need something very substantial to have any kind of certainty that we are born sinners
GhaleonQ
Member
I don't disagree, which is why there are book-length arguments about it. Personally, Kierkegaard and Luther did the philosophical and theological bits, the Bible did the religious bit, and experience did the practical bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bondage_of_the_Will http://www.amazon.com/dp/1619490919/?tag=neogaf0e-20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Trembling http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691020264/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Concering Bound Choice is a philosophical masterwork, and Fear And Trembling is its companion. It's no coincidence that my favorite prose fiction writer is Dostoevskii.
Really, I wasn't even referring to meeting that standard. Actors are just as important as thinkers, in my view. Even a semi-pagan like Constantinus I meets that burden, and he even backed it up with primitive "religious freedom" arguments.
See I have a problem with people using the bible as any kind of moral compass, and certainly not a source of any accurate historical events.
If you cant prove to me that the Bible, the very epicenter of christian belief, has any credibility on any front, then im not going to read into the following theology.
You realise faith in the sense of belief independent of reason, logic, evidence, etc (i.e. no amount of evidence, logic, reason will convince you otherwise of your belief in *insert belief*), is quite different from a standard belief.
A standard belief; e.g. where I believe that I'll be able to sleep again in my own bed tonight is based on prior experience and continued expectations. It's a belief that is to an extent a extrapolation, and also one that is contingent and can quickly be overturned should circumstances change.
Or perhaps the belief that the sun will again 'rise' tomorrow. It's done so everyday since I've been alive, but should events change and evidence show otherwise, my belief in its ability to 'rise' can rapidly change.
I believe these things; but they're all subject and contingent to change and evidence. None of them are held just for the sake of been held.
I don't exercise any beliefs that could be considered a faith, although I might not be thinking hard enough. What do you think I or other non-theistic gaffers hold in faith?
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
This, like any other brain-centric explanation for religious experiences, is completely inept at proving anything to believers about their experiences of God being an illusion. Why? Try to think of it from a believer's perspective. If God made us to sense things by use of our brain, then certainly our brain can be manipulated to think that we are experiencing things that we are not, and that may well be the way that he himself gives visions and whatnot.
The concept of the supernatural is that it is transcendent of the natural yet is not removed from it. Interaction between supernatural and natural is the premise of every communion with God and miracle. So, like many other things, the skeptic sees this and considers it a possible explanation for the experiences, and a believer looks at it and considers it a possible understanding of the mechanics of the experiences.
GhaleonQ
Member
That's an interesting way to think of things. I'm not a literature major, but I bet someone could make a big fuss about your position. The Grand Inquisitor expands on the temptation of the Christ and Fear And Trembling expands on the binding of Isaac so much that, though they aren't canonical, they reveal a 2nd layer of philosophical strength underneath its formidable appearance.
In any case, nearly no one could argue a Kierkegaard-tier figure. It doesn't mean the Bible's right, but that no Christian ought to feel ashamed of his belief. We don't really have to bother with Bungalow Bob's view unless we want to do so.
Peasant Princess-King
Member
Pfft, it is his opinion, not mine... It was a very lengthy discussion and he did most of the talking. Sorry I can't be more helpful, I was merely using him as an example as someone who has really examined their faith w/o going, "Derp, Jesus iz real cus... Just CUZ!lol" he was very thorough.
he is also very respectful of other's beliefs and opinions.As far as him being indoctrinated since birth, not sure. He used to manage a strip club but has gone back to school to start his own business. He is not one of those in-your-face Christians. I asked him about his beliefs and he just answered. :/
Pfft, it is his opinion, not mine... It was a very lengthy discussion and he did most of the talking. Sorry I can't be more helpful, I was merely using him as an example as someone who has really examined their faith w/o going, "Derp, Jesus iz real cus... Just CUZ!lol" he was very thorough.
As far as him being indoctrinated since birth, not sure. He used to manage a strip club but has gone back to school to start his own business. He is not one of those in-your-face Christians. I asked him about his beliefs and he just answered. :/
Well, I have had many discussions with religious people. The one pervasive assumption is that one's life is magical, life and existence must be explained in a supernatural manner.
going by the evidence of their historicity, none of the bibles major characters ever existed.
But even if reality would grant you Jesus, you would sill have to proof that he was the "son of a god" who preformed miracles/wizardry, and not just some fraudster with an entourage of unwashed illiterates.
The net is wider than religious faith. Why does a ruthless dictator believe their position? Why does a racial supremacist in theirs?
Each one totting some book or another. A 'Holy' book, a 'red' book, a 'green' book.
It's so much easier to believe in simple sounding nonsense than complex sense, and simplicity saves everyone mental energy they usually don't have the time for.
This ease allows people to overlook the massive gaps, internal and external inconsistencies, and the absurdity of their beliefs. When these beliefs carry great weight, such as the fate of the soul, the existence of a nation/tribe/people, or what have you, they put that much more onus into being dishonest to both themselves and what is empirically true.
This is also partly facilitated by the fact that people are often too nice with regards to nonsense out of concern for greater social harmony. It may be fine with children who innately express boundless imaginations but not with adults who are often burdened with far greater responsibilities that have great repercussions (like nuclear weapons, economic management, law). That someone believes in Angels, Djinns, or racial theories should carry more upfront incredulity and demands for proof long before their 'books' should be given any validation. These are fantastic claims that shouldn't be overlooked for the less dramatic.
We don't do it with Dungeons & Dragons by first having to read through its lore and rule sets, we shouldn't need to do it with other forms of fiction. We don't even do it with Pagan religions, where we rule out Zeus or Odin long before we read through legends and fairy tales.
Each one totting some book or another. A 'Holy' book, a 'red' book, a 'green' book.
It's so much easier to believe in simple sounding nonsense than complex sense, and simplicity saves everyone mental energy they usually don't have the time for.
This ease allows people to overlook the massive gaps, internal and external inconsistencies, and the absurdity of their beliefs. When these beliefs carry great weight, such as the fate of the soul, the existence of a nation/tribe/people, or what have you, they put that much more onus into being dishonest to both themselves and what is empirically true.
This is also partly facilitated by the fact that people are often too nice with regards to nonsense out of concern for greater social harmony. It may be fine with children who innately express boundless imaginations but not with adults who are often burdened with far greater responsibilities that have great repercussions (like nuclear weapons, economic management, law). That someone believes in Angels, Djinns, or racial theories should carry more upfront incredulity and demands for proof long before their 'books' should be given any validation. These are fantastic claims that shouldn't be overlooked for the less dramatic.
We don't do it with Dungeons & Dragons by first having to read through its lore and rule sets, we shouldn't need to do it with other forms of fiction. We don't even do it with Pagan religions, where we rule out Zeus or Odin long before we read through legends and fairy tales.
You need to meet more religious people.
we are always willing to listen to any intelligent reasoning behind religion
but it never seems to happen, and always ends with external reference and people telling us to "go read this book" instead of being able to even begin to explain it themselves.
How can you willfully devote your life to something that you cant explain?
Ken Masters
Banned
neither side can prove the other wrong, just let people be
burden of proof rests on believers
and no, I will not let people be when they are willing to spread lies about my very existence
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
lol 10/10
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
Religion poisons everything, OP.
Just look at the GOP race in America. People that are running to be the leader of the free fucking world want to ban abortions, ban contraceptives, ban stem cell research, ban gay marriage (and generally shit on rights of the LGBT) and teach creationism, allow prayer in schools. You know what should be banned? Religion for allowing people to be pieces of shit.
Just look at the GOP race in America. People that are running to be the leader of the free fucking world want to ban abortions, ban contraceptives, ban stem cell research, ban gay marriage (and generally shit on rights of the LGBT) and teach creationism, allow prayer in schools. You know what should be banned? Religion for allowing people to be pieces of shit.
Thagomizer
Member
I think that this is the crux here. From reading this thread, you are trying to apply how you think and approach the world-and problems in general- with people who fundamentally think differently than you. You-and a large component of this thread- think that because these people don't follow your thought process- i.e. logical and scientific method-based- they are less intelligent. I'd be willing to bet that many of these people could destroy the majority of this thread on pure intellectual power. However, their arguments don't hold water with you because you don't accept them as valid, and they don't really care what you have to say because it's not really relevant to the reasons of their faith.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmslhmZy-so
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2WPxRH_QpY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klfmH67b1Js&feature=related
Oh, and this is the main justification for a lot of people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mAtjs-JAtE
Full disclosure: I'm an atheist science major and my parents are both nonreligious- father Catholic, mother Protestant (dunno which sect specifically)
Ken Masters
Banned
Lies which you can't, for 100% certain with facts, disprove
So once again, neither side can fully prove themselves right, which makes this a forever pointless debate in which people waste their lives away at
I never mentioned a personal bias on intelligence
But it is a very real statistic that intelligent people are less likely to be religious.
Im sure some of them could beat me in a calculus exam, but that doesn't make their belief in the christian god any less stupid.
Its not pointless, the world is slowly becoming less religious.
Not being able to prove something doesnt validate something
Someone already mentioned Russels Teapot
Ken Masters
Banned
How is it not pointless? Two sides arguing about something that is impossible to prove either way. Nothing will EVER come from the discussion, EVER. Let's say one side says "ok, you're right I'm wrong". Then what? NOTHING. Nothing will happen, nothing will change, no one will have any greater understanding of anything because there still will be zero evidence one way or another.
Like I said, pointless to argue about
I dont think you understand how this works
we dont have to prove that science exists
calling bullshit on something that needs to be is the opposite of pointless
Christianity will not be around forever, and Science will continue to expand
pretty much everything will change
Dude Abides
Banned
This is an odd argument to make on an internet message board.
Isn't hard to isolate or express a person's conviction in quantifiable terms? To gauge into the reasons behind a person's belief may involve factors such as the person's lifestyle, culture, and the sum of their experiences to the present.
A definite belief in God or any deity could stem from a notion that is aroused by "the unknown" (probably what also drives cryptozoologists to find creatures they believe to exist). It could also stem from how societies have some sort of hierarchy of authority (a person is used to being under the auspices of something or someone). I don't think we can ever arrive at a definite answer because beliefs seem subjective overall. People can regard beliefs as vestigial artifacts or as a mechanism for people to place some sort of value into this existence, maybe both.
A definite belief in God or any deity could stem from a notion that is aroused by "the unknown" (probably what also drives cryptozoologists to find creatures they believe to exist). It could also stem from how societies have some sort of hierarchy of authority (a person is used to being under the auspices of something or someone). I don't think we can ever arrive at a definite answer because beliefs seem subjective overall. People can regard beliefs as vestigial artifacts or as a mechanism for people to place some sort of value into this existence, maybe both.
Thagomizer
Member
...did you even look at the links I provided, or did you just focus on that statement? And in any case, again, in most cases, the falsibility of the existance of God is not important. It's literally in the definition of "faith" that scientific provability is not important for the belief.
In any case, using God to find meaning in a life that would otherwise be a cold, unfeeling existence, like in that Scrubs clip, is a very different thing that using it to, say, try to have Creationism taught in schools.
Although, since your objection is the existence of faith itself, would you say that a person bettering their life because they "found God," or Buddah, or Zeus, or whomever-whether they contribute to charity, give up a crippling addiction, being able to cope with trauma they otherwise wouldn't be handle, or just being a happier person in general, is a bad thing on the face of it?
not bad, unless you call a shallow world view bad
but there are better alternatives that dont involve supporting a theocracy
especially in America
Pollux
Member
hold the fuck on, just because someone is religious they support a theocracy?
what the hell are you talking about
Thagomizer
Member
there is a higher chance that they will vote for someone that supports their beliefs, yes.
...shallow? How so?
BTW,
you had an argument?
its shallow because it requires you to believe that all of the questions are ultimately answered, and that humans are somehow special.
Pollux
Member
Yay, let's generalize!!!!
I'm not voting for someone because they're religious, I'm voting for someone b/c they can fix the damn economy. Anyone who wants to legislate morality is off my ballot, I may have my personal beliefs but I have no right to force them on others.
I guess you dont know what "greater chance" means
you're welcome to contradict me if you want
Thagomizer
Member
Oh cool, we've taken this to passive-aggressive pissiness and pretending to make concessions, but only with back-handed insults. I feel so proud.
How does religious belief require that all questions are ultimately answered? A major component of religious belief- especially Christianity- is that we can't answer all the questions (in a philosophical sense, not questions like "how do animals metabolize sugar?") and that, on some level, God is fundamentally unknowable to the limited human mind.
Just because I feel like being semantic and splitting hairs, humans are special evolutionarily, just from how much superlative intelligence, dexterity, and a whole bunch of other things that separate you and I from the rest of the animal kingdom, even other extraordinarily intelligent, social animals like elephants and chimpanzees and dolphins and parrots.
you already know the origins of life
you already know the purpose of your life, and what happens afterwards
and depending on your level of crazy, you know how the world will end
if you're going to tell me you believe in the christian god, but none of the implications of the bible then you are doing it wrong
and you still had no argument, but thanks for the macros and quibble
really makes you stand out!
Our respiratory system is not as efficient as a dolphins
Our eyesight is overshadowed by birds of prey
Our digestive tract being placed next to the family jewels is terrible 'design'
We are almost undoubtedly not alone in the universe
Pollux
Member
So tell me oh wise one,
What is the origin of life?
What is the purpose of life?
How will the world end?
I mean if we already know this then that should be easy for you to answer with 100% certainty.
not sure if serious
adam and eve is not MY story to tell
nor is the end of days
as a christian it is YOUR story
and you cant just omit this shit to be tailor made for your own version of Christianity
Hey, hey, hey. Get your logical comparisons out of here. This thread is about strawmen and not-so-subtle ad hominems!
Thumbs > Flight
Bio 101
Pollux
Member
Way to answer my questions. I'll ask again. In YOUR mind...
What is the origin of life?
What is our purpose?
How will the world end.
Thagomizer
Member
Sorry, but I made no claims on biblical literalism, and neither do a suprisingly large number of religious organizations. Did you know that literal interpretation is one of the components of the definition of fundamentalism? Judging from what I've seen from you, I doubt that, or that you actually care.
You know what? You clearly aren't interested in having a discussion like an adult, and for all your bluster about being rational, you debate very emotionally and with petty insults. I'd say it makes you stand out, but you really actually blend in rather marvelously with the public writ large. Bonne nuit!
Perhaps not. It is a different sort of separation. Even if it has no special spiritual value, sapience is quite a bit more novel than flight or echolocation and- as far as we can tell- unique, at least to the extent of humans.
although I do believe that there is intelligent life that has evolved off Earth, exists now, and will evolve in the future, interdependently from one another
- Status