Anti-Christian Bigotry?

GostHacked · October 4, 2013

That's your opinion.

The_Squid · October 4, 2013

The definition of "logic" has been stretched beyond recognition by AW as much as the term "belief" where belief becomes the same as disbelief. Now logic can mean anything that anyone believes!

You are twisting meanings into pretzels... now meanings have become meaningless!

dre · October 4, 2013

Sorry, but not "no," as the religious have applied "logic" when explaining their beliefs, their views, too. As I said, both sides have, and that's a fact.

That's your opinion. Those who have explained their belief in god through logic would disagree.

Some religious people's beliefs are based on that. Not all.

I'm generally not speaking of children's beliefs in this thread. Are you?? Because children generally don't know how to deduct the Big Bang theory all on their own, either. You keep equating a belief in a god to a belief in a Santa Claus, to children's beliefs, and that's not relevant to adult's belief in a god.

The bottom line is that some religious people do use logic to explain their beliefs.

Not true. Logic says the sun is going to come up tomorrow and we have faith that it will.

I'm generally not speaking of children's beliefs in this thread. Are you?? Because children generally don't know how to deduct the Big Bang theory all on their own, either. You keep equating a belief in a god to a belief in a Santa Claus, to children's beliefs, and that's not relevant to adult's belief in a god.

But that is when most people are indoctrinated. It IS relevant to and adults belief in god.

That's your opinion. Those who have explained their belief in god through logic would disagree.

You are talking about post-hoc rationalization though. Those things come AFTER indoctrination.

Not true. Logic says the sun is going to come up tomorrow and we have faith that it will.

No faith is required to believe the sun will come up tomorrow. We have a good understand of the physics involved. Belief that the sun will come up is an evidence based belief. The belief that that sun is the god apollo... well thats a faith based belief.

Belief does not = indoctrination.

Yes belief in a human religion most certainly DOES mean indoctrination. All the various claims associated with Christianity for example are part of the christian doctrine. The virgin birth, the resurrection, etc etc. Its a doctrine by its very definition.

Edited October 4, 2013 by dre

cybercoma · October 5, 2013

What a complete @#$%^&* waste of time.

Bingo.

The_Squid · October 5, 2013

Bingo.

agreed. This is getting silly.

Bonam · October 5, 2013

I think the existence of this thread proves that there is no god. No intelligent designer could have included this in their design, it is impossible!

dre · October 5, 2013

I think the existence of this thread proves that there is no god. No intelligent designer could have included this in their design, it is impossible!

The funny thing is that an educated westerner should understand the difference between emprical and doctrinal knowledge by about grade6.

Oh well...

October 5, 2013

Yes belief in a human religion most certainly DOES mean indoctrination. All the various claims associated with Christianity for example are part of the christian doctrine. The virgin birth, the resurrection, etc etc. Its a doctrine by its very definition.

No, it most definitely does not. You insist on painting all religious people, all those who believe in a god, with the same brush.

And yes, while logic tells us that the sun will come out tomorrow, faith assures us that it will, as logic also tells us that there are no guarantees.

dre · October 5, 2013

No, it most definitely does not. You insist on painting all religious people, all those who believe in a god, with the same brush.

And yes, while logic tells us that the sun will come out tomorrow, faith assures us that it will, as logic also tells us that there are no guarantees.

Who ever knows if you are being intentionally obtuse or if you really just cant grasp some of these concepts, but again... Religions are doctrines. Its not possible for people independantly assimilate the body of religious knowledge through logic and reason. You have be taught them, either by other people or by studying them or both. That process is called indoctrination.

And yes, while logic tells us that the sun will come out tomorrow, faith assures us that it will, as logic also tells us that there are no guarantees.

Again... the belief that the sun is going to come up tomorrow is not a faith based belief. Its an evidence based belief. The belief that that sun is the god apollo... well THAT would be a faith based belief.

You really need to do some basic reading on faith and rationality and the difference between the two. Its never to late to learn this stuff!

October 5, 2013

Who ever knows if you are being intentionally obtuse or if you really just cant grasp some of these concepts,

It's you who is unable to grasp the concept that not all people who believe in god have been indoctrinated.

but again... Religions are doctrines. Its not possible for people independantly assimilate the body of religious knowledge through logic and reason.

So you keep saying. Doesn't make it true. Again. Some do apply logic to their beliefs. That you say that it's not possible doesn't change that reality.

You have be taught them, either by other people or by studying them or both. That process is called indoctrination.

No everyone who believes in a god has been "taught" to believe in a god. Furthermore, not all "teaching" = "indoctrination."

Again... the belief that the sun is going to come up tomorrow is not a faith based belief. Its an evidence based belief. The belief that that sun is the god apollo... well THAT would be a faith based belief.

Again. The belief that the sun will come up tomorrow is both evidence based and faith based, as evidence shows us that things change in this world. Just as I said. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

You really need to do some basic reading on faith and rationality and the difference between the two. Its never to late to learn this stuff!

You really should take your own advice.

GostHacked · October 5, 2013

It's you who is unable to grasp the concept that not all people who believe in god have been indoctrinated.

We are not talking about those people. We are talking about the ones who have been indoctrinated. Thing is, you may not even know you have been indoctrinated.

No everyone who believes in a god has been "taught" to believe in a god. Furthermore, not all "teaching" = "indoctrination."

See above.

Again. The belief that the sun will come up tomorrow is both evidence based and faith based, as evidence shows us that things change in this world. Just as I said. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.

The sun has been coming up for billions of years. Evidence shows it will rise again tomorrow, aside some cosmic interaction which could obliterate the earth or the sun. The other thing is the sun was treated as a god in some ancient cultures. And Ra is older than the Christian god.

Person A - I believe in the sun

Person B - I don't

Person A - But the sun is right there in the sky shining down on us.

Person B - yeah but that is your opinion and it's all simply faith.

Do you believe in Ra? If not, why not? Let's see your logic applied to that.

You really should take your own advice.

Point blank you have a reading issue. Or you like to troll. Which is it?

Edited October 5, 2013 by GostHacked

kimmy · October 5, 2013

I gather AW teaches philosophy at the same college where Pliny teaches physics.

-k

bleeding heart · October 5, 2013

As it stands, both sides claim logic in their reasoning. Logic, as I said, is not an absolute.

Just so:

Person of Faith: "There is an all-knowing, perfect God, and He is objectively real, and we should live by His precepts."

Atheist: "I'd like to see some evidence before I make such an enormous claim."

Pretty much identical claims of logic.

bleeding heart · October 5, 2013

I think the existence of this thread proves that there is no god. No intelligent designer could have included this in their design, it is impossible!

And would have no reason to do so...unless we adhere to the MALEVOLENT Design theory, an idea which gets surprisingly little traffic, given the (relative) evidence.

carepov · October 6, 2013

So what evidence separates the mysterious unknowable god you speak of from the Cosmic Gummy Bear?

I don't know about evidence, but I can say that taking a leap of faith and saying "God exists" is not at all like saying "the CGB exists" - as per Asimov it is on par with the leap of faith into the claim that "God does not exist".

BubberMiley · October 6, 2013

This whole thread has been crippled by the lack of distinction between "God does not exist" and "I see no conclusive evidence God exists so I have no (logical) reason to believe it is so."

The_Squid · October 6, 2013

This whole thread has been crippled by the lack of distinction between "God does not exist" and "I see no conclusive evidence God exists so I have no (logical) reason to believe it is so."

Some folks are purposely obtuse because they think that it somehow strengthens their argument. Silly.

bleeding heart · October 6, 2013

This whole thread has been crippled by the lack of distinction between "God does not exist" and "I see no conclusive evidence God exists so I have no (logical) reason to believe it is so."

That's just it.

Further, the "we all BELIEVE" argument is reaching absurd proportions.

The pedantic "belief" argument ultimately insists that we don't KNOW if we exist; we could be components in the elaborate dream of the Great Turtle who holds the Earth on his shell.

Well, that's fine, if people want to push that argument.

Except that they don't. The pedanticism is not about this at all.

They never argue "You BELIEVE that the Homeric pantheon doesn't exist."

They always argue, "You BELIEVE that God (singular, and related to the Abrahamic theological traditions)) doesn't exist."

So we can see their "philosophical" argument about the nature of "belief" is not completely honest.

dre · October 6, 2013

That's just it.

Further, the "we all BELIEVE" argument is reaching absurd proportions.

The pedantic "belief" argument ultimately insists that we don't KNOW if we exist; we could be components in the elaborate dream of the Great Turtle who holds the Earth on his shell.

Well, that's fine, if people want to push that argument.

Except that they don't. The pedanticism is not about this at all.

They never argue "You BELIEVE that the Homeric pantheon doesn't exist."

They always argue, "You BELIEVE that God (singular, and related to the Abrahamic theological traditions)) doesn't exist."

So we can see their "philosophical" argument about the nature of "belief" is not completely honest.

Thats a pretty good post for 3:48 AM. What the hell is wrong with you?

bleeding heart · October 6, 2013

Thats a pretty good post for 3:48 AM. What the hell is wrong with you?

Way the F over here in Canada's East, it was 6:48...which is almost a civilized hour.

carepov · October 6, 2013

This whole thread has been crippled by the lack of distinction between "God does not exist" and "I see no conclusive evidence God exists so I have no (logical) reason to believe it is so."

Yes, moving on, obviously there is a distiction between the claims:

"God does not exist"

and

"I see no conclusive evidence God exists so I have no (logical) reason to believe it is so."

There are some people, such as Asimov, that do calim "God does not exist" - and do so admitedly based on emotion. Are we to criticize Asimov for "not living in an evidence-based reality"?

Here again are his words, what do you think?

"I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, neither is there any evidence against it; so, if a person feels comfortable believing that, I am willing to have him believe it... as an article of faith. I have articles of faith, too. I have an article of faith that says the universe makes sense. Now there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense, but there's just no fun in living in the universe if it doesn't make sense... my belief is that no matter how far we go we will always find that the universe makes sense. We will never get to the point where it suddenly stops making sense. But that is just an assumption on my part... I don't feel that people who believe in God will automatically be noble, but neither do I think they will automatically be wicked. I don't think those who don't believe in God will be automatically noble or automatically wicked either. I think this is a choice for every human being..."

"Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

http://www.adherents...aac_Asimov.html

bleeding heart · October 6, 2013

Yes, moving on, obviously there is a distiction between the claims:

"God does not exist"

and

"I see no conclusive evidence God exists so I have no (logical) reason to believe it is so."

There are some people, such as Asimov, that do calim "God does not exist" - and do so admitedly based on emotion. Are we to criticize Asimov for "not living in an evidence-based reality"?

No, because, again, Asimov's lack of belief is of a reasonable genesis (if I can use the word ).

That he has "articles of faith" himself, as we all do, doesn't mean these articles of faith are equal in any way...not in what they signify, and not in how and why we adhere to them.

As he says, "I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist." Just so. No one does.

But, as we keep going round and round about here, that applies to an innumerable number of not-proven ideas that virtually no one expects us to adhere to.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell came to a vaguely related conclusion: in the most pedantic sense of the word, most atheists are actually "agnostic" (though not in the sense that many agnostics themselves use the term); but we can only call them agnostic insofar as they are agnostic about a thousand different notions, many of them monumentally preposterous.

That is, a concession that we can't prove a negative (which is a concession that people of religious faith seem predisposed to avoid....as they must, or else question their own faith) is necessary only because the religious side of these debates refuses to give ground, so such generous concessions to pedantry must be tolerated.

So, no, we can't "prove" there is no God.

Just as we cannot "prove" that we exist at all, Descartes' possibly faulty formula (Cogito ergo sum) notwithstanding.

We cannot "prove" we aren't surrounded by a gaggle of invisible, capering demons, either.

THAT'S the level such concessions are working from.

Edited October 6, 2013 by bleeding heart

cybercoma · October 6, 2013

I gather AW teaches philosophy at the same college where Pliny teaches physics.

-k

Ouch.

carepov · October 7, 2013

That he has "articles of faith" himself, as we all do, doesn't mean these articles of faith are equal in any way...not in what they signify, and not in how and why we adhere to them.

Thanks for the thoughtful post. If I understand you correctly some "articles of faith" are more plausible than others. For example, saying "God exists" is not the same as saying "the Cosmic Gummy Bear exists", right?

Bonam · October 7, 2013

Thanks for the thoughtful post. If I understand you correctly some "articles of faith" are more plausible than others. For example, saying "God exists" is not the same as saying "the Cosmic Gummy Bear exists", right?

Only in that "God" and "Cosmic Gummy Bear" are different words. Saying "Zeus exists" is not the same as saying "Odin exists", but both are equally implausible, and both are equally rejected by Christians as well as atheists and agnostics (in fact most atheists and agnostics probably reject the notion of Zeus or Odin existing slightly less strongly than Christians do, since, presented with reliable evidence, atheists and agnostics would generally have an open mind, whereas Christians, by nature of their belief, could not accept the existence of a different "god").

Edited October 7, 2013 by Bonam