Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Theists who imagine they're "sophisticated" for not believing in organized religion, are still full of faith (used here as a synonym for a no-no word)


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 90 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 1, 2012 7:33:07 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 1:55:18 AM PST
Jack Vix says:
A lot of people have a beef with organized religion but not with religious/spiritual/supernatural thinking in general. Which makes about as much sense as objecting to organized crime but not crime in general.

Theists who don't like organized religions and think they're somehow more rational... aren't. Religion is inherently irrational. There's no reason to accept any one set of beliefs without evidence over another. Personal or organized, beautiful or ugly, nice or cruel.

"Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater"

Stop trying to sneak God in the back door, you cowards. It's not about the particular beliefs, and them being cruel or pleasant sounding, that doesn't make something any more or less true, nor does having more "sophisticated" premises make your belief any less childish. What it's about is what is true and how we determine this: evidence. Deliberately attempting to believe something not warranted by evidence is inescapably dishonest. Faith is an utterly vacuous excuse where you can "just believe". Stop hiding behind imaginary justifications given to you by society and admit that you don't know. Claiming something when you don't know, to others or even yourself, especially yourself, is dishonest. That's not a virtue.

It's not at all essential. Throw out the baby with the bathwater. Intellectually, you can't afford it. No matter how much you tell yourself you can, you're lying and you know it.

"Faith is a cop-out. If the only reason you can accept a claim is by faith, then you are admitting that the claim does not stand on its own merits. If something is true, we don't invoke faith. Instead, we use reason to prove it. Faith is intellectual bankruptcy. With faith, you don't have to put any work into proving your case. You can 'just believe.'"
--Dan Barker

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2012 8:00:02 PM PST
Stan Furman says:
Jack, are you off your meds again? Anyway, what do you think about Many-worlds interpretation?

Posted on Dec 2, 2012 9:04:28 AM PST
"Theists who don't like the teachings of organized religions and think they're somehow more rational... aren't. Religion is inherently irrational."

Show me something that's 100% rational and I'll show you a computer.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 10:06:55 AM PST
mark says:
The expression of a fraction, with the denominator >0.

You did ask for something 100% rational. Other than a computer.

Posted on Dec 2, 2012 10:08:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 10:10:12 AM PST
MLC says:
Given the amount of evidence for God -- cosmological, teleological, axiological, experiential, historical, etc. -- the Christian faith is not unwarranted. Rather, it is a matter of trust that grows as one accumulates the evidence and spends time with God, seeing him answer prayer after prayer after prayer.

I have no problem with atheists who make the attempt to refute the many evidences for God with valid, rational, intelligent arguments. However, those who deny the evidence must either not have looked for any or know it exists, but continue to deny it anyway. I assume those who choose the latter do so because they do not have the ability to refute it. Unfortunately, these people tend to hurl insults at God and Christians and Christianity, thereby committing the fallacy of an ad hominem.

Ex-atheist J. Warner Wallace used the same methodology he uses as a cold case detective to explore the arguments for the existence of God and came to the conclusion that he is indeed real. See the following link:

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 10:40:07 AM PST
Substituting an erroneous definition is a fallacy, and, hence, is irrational. Within the context of the OP and the response, the correct definition should have been understood.

Your response was humorous, and humor frequently contains an element of irrationality. Another reason why being 100% rational would be borrrring.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 10:49:03 AM PST
since you keep posting in the religion forum you must admit that atheism ***is*** a religion

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 11:03:21 AM PST
Silly, irrational, and illogical.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 11:12:52 AM PST
Jack Vix,

How does "evidence" lead to what is true or determine what is true? This sounds like begging the question. I bet you can't even support such a contention without being irrational, i.e. without invoking some sort of logical fallacy.

SCL

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 1:06:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 11:02:20 PM PST
Jack Vix says:
MLC: Given the amount of evidence for God -- cosmological, teleological, axiological, experiential, historical, etc.

JV: A mountain of logical fallacies and non-sequiturs are not "evidence". It doesn't matter how pretty you find trees. There's no good evidence for it at all.

MLC: Rather, it is a matter of trust that grows as one accumulates the evidence and spends time with God, seeing him answer prayer after prayer after prayer.

JV: Confirmation bias and pattern seeking for coincidences and seeing "signs" is not "evidence", it's actually one of the indicators of schizophrenia.

MLC: However, those who deny the evidence must either not have looked for any or know it exists, but continue to deny it anyway.

JV: I've looked into what people try to tell themselves is evidence and I've heard all the stock arguments and they're not only unpersuasive and full of logical fallacies but the religious are comically stubborn in holding to unsound argument.

One religion thought the wold would end in 1914, and when the year passed, rather than reset their calculation or admit they were wrong, they stuck to it. They instead announced that the world in fact did end, and those who couldn't notice it, well it was their loss.

MLC: Unfortunately, these people tend to hurl insults at God and Christians and Christianity, thereby committing the fallacy of an ad hominem.

JV: An ad hominem is not simply insulting someone. It's using an insult as an argument. An argument that happens to have an insult in it is completely valid, dummy.

MLC: Ex-atheist J. Warner Wallace used the same methodology he uses as a cold case detective...

JV: He's full of it. The faithful rely on confirmation rather than attempts to refute their own hypothesis. This is bias, not investigation. His claim otherwise is like an obese person claiming they're in shape. The unknown is just that, and no justification to believe anything comes from it. If you cared about the truth you would accept ignorance where you're ignorant and investigate possibilities, instead of accepting a specific desired premise and refusing to see it as incorrect. That's what is called being close-minded. You are shutting out billions of possibilities and instead accepting and searching for what you want the answer to be.

Something on one of the posts on that site:
"The cause of the universe had the ability to decide to bring the universe into existence, and the ability to decide is an attribute of personhood."
This is a assertion, not a sound argument. There's no ground to say a being "chose" to make it. He is projecting humanness onto nature (pathetic fallacy). He is seeking what he *wants* to see in it, not actually investigating. A detective deals with intent and people... there's no reason to put that on, say, the death of a star, the beginning(if it had one) of our universe, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 2:45:07 PM PST
Does posting in the Movie forum make me a movie?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 4:10:23 PM PST
S. Kessler says:
Guess you have no idea what "evidence" is and what it means. Yup.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 4:23:33 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 5:34:43 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 5:39:25 PM PST
Irish Lace says:
"Given the amount of evidence for God -- cosmological, teleological, axiological, experiential, historical, etc. "

This NEVER fails to get a laugh out of me.

Although, this is pretty funny too - about a 9 on the Irony Meter: "I have no problem with atheists who make the attempt to refute the many evidences for God with valid, rational, intelligent arguments."

Posted on Dec 2, 2012 6:01:02 PM PST
In a homicide case that goes to court. "Men and women of the jury. We have no evidence to convict the defendant. You just have to believe that he is guilty. Just believe, just believe. We have no DNA evidence, no weapon, nothing that can be examined, analyzed nor tested. Not one shred of physical evidence. However, this defendant is guilty. You just have to believe and have faith like I do that the defendant we have in custody is guilty."

Almost every person I have seen writing on these forums who are proclaimed theists, believers or what not do not seem to have a clue what constitutes evidence. They have a weak understanding of what constitutes verifiable, testable, corroborated evidence. Then again, most do not have a clue to the definition of a theory as well. So it is not surprising I guess.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 6:12:14 PM PST
brunumb says:
Put God and a Christian together and you've got the next best thing to an Abbott and Costello routine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 6:19:12 PM PST
brunumb says:
Nice analogy SM. You might like to interpolate this into your scenario:
"But we do have a note. We don't know who wrote it or when it was written, but it says that the defendant is guilty."

Posted on Dec 2, 2012 6:30:44 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 6:31:14 PM PST
In a homicide case that goes to court. "Men and women of the jury. We have no evidence to convict the defendant. You just have to believe that he is guilty. Just believe, just believe. We have no DNA evidence, no weapon, nothing that can be examined, analyzed nor tested. Not one shred of physical evidence. However, this defendant is guilty. You just have to believe and have faith like I do that the defendant we have in custody is guilty. [But we do have a note. We don't know who wrote it or when it was written, but it says that the defendant is guilty]."

Nothing in this scenario appears to say anything about whether or not the judgement of the jury is false. It is perfectly possible that the judgement of the jury was true (even lacking what is mentioned), and it is perfectly possible that the judgement of the jury was false (even lacking what was mentioned).

SCL

Posted on Dec 2, 2012 6:57:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 7:00:07 PM PST
The problem is that we do not convict people of crimes without any evidence. We do not convict and base judgments on a lack of evidence and merely hearsay. We do not convict on 2nd, 3rd and 4th hand hearsay. Definitely not hearsay that can not even remotely be corroborated by independent sources. Nor hearsay that is written by some unknown person whose veracity can not be examined or be determined.

Posted on Dec 2, 2012 7:04:36 PM PST
Imagine this scenario: SCL is the victim of a gruesome, but nonlethal, crime--witnessed and videotaped, no less. But defendant's counsel claims that no "evidence" is guaranteed free of logical fallacies, and the defendant gets off. I think we would soon find that even SCL doesn't believe the stinky litter (s)he is shoveling.

Epistemological vandalism/nihilism is thus a perfect breeding ground for heinous crime.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 5:58:18 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
"since you keep posting in the religion forum you must admit that atheism ***is*** a religion"

Logical fallacy.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 7:34:49 AM PST
Ambulocetus says:
"Theists who don't like organized religions and think they're somehow more rational--aren't. Religion is inherently irrational. There's no reason to accept any one set of beliefs without evidence over another. Personal or organized, beautiful or ugly, nice or cruel. . . .Stop trying to sneak God in the back door, you cowards."

Human beings are innately prone to experiences which have been variously called mystical, religious, numinous, etc.
The Varieties of Religious Experience
In these experiences, the subject frequently feels a strong presence, not their own self, which is well-disposed toward them and which sometimes gives them advice and/or comfort. Further, the world around the subject is perceived as intensely meaningful and beautiful.

There is nothing "cowardly" for someone who has such an experience to take it seriously. It is the same process which you yourself use, I imagine, in making knowledge out of your own perceptions of good, evil, value, meaning, etc.

Further, though this experience cannot be taken out and shown to everyone else, and cannot be binding on anyone else, it is a compelling experience for the subject him/herself. And when we see that literally thousands of human beings from religious traditions all around the world have had such experiences, and that there are many areas of similarity BETWEEN such experiences, there is something to be said for humility when making sweeping judgments about "faith" and how inherently moronic and psychopathic it is.

Also, I would be interested to see you, not quoting Sam Harris or Penn Gillette on faith, but providing definitions of faith from THEISTIC sources, and explaining what is wrong with them. This would be more difficult, more productive of understanding, and more interesting. See, for example, pp. 202ff in the following book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VwwtInC5fwAC&pg=a#v=onepage&q&f=false

Or pp. 258 ff in this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=IzqDiPALzKEC&pg=PA238&dq=a#v=onepage&q=faith&f=false

Just a thought.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 8:37:40 AM PST
I thought that little passage from MLC looked familiar. You and I have addressed that before. In fact MLC seems to post these assertions, the issues are refuted, and MLC resurfaces a couple of months later as though those issues had never been refuted. True head in the sand time com MLC.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 11:41:18 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 3, 2012 11:41:35 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
That, in a nutshell, is belief. When proven wrong, ignore it, act like nothing has changed, and proclaim your position even more strongly than before. And call it a virtue!

Faith--a poor substitute for thinking.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 3, 2012 11:59:24 AM PST
Brian Curtis,

The "proven wrong" is wishful thinking on your part.

Faith is thinking, deeply applied.

Clarissa
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  22
Total posts:  90
Initial post:  Dec 1, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 18, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions