Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[Moonlight Graham]

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

Definition of "faith": Emphasis mine:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

Debate over.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[kimmy]

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?

Why?

What would make the Cosmic Gummy Bear any more or less plausible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or The Great Pumpkin, or Zeus, or Yahweh?

What if there really were a supreme being, and he announced his presence to a group of Ecstacy-addled rave kids in the form of a delicious avatar that they would inherently trust? (kind of like how the alien appeared to Jodie Foster in the form of her father in "Contact", or the angel appeared to Homer in the form of Colonel Klink in that episode of The Simpsons.) Would that be any more or less plausible than the supreme being announcing himself to Moses in the form of a flaming shrub?

Trying to rate the plausibility of one vs the other seems pretty pointless to me.

I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. It has a long and proven track record of doing so. We've got excellent information to explain how and why this happens, and we can predict the moment it will happen right down to the second.

I believe that I'll rise tomorrow too. It's less certain than the sun, but I too have an excellent track record of not dying in my sleep. Some day my belief that I'll wake up the next day will prove incorrect.

I believe that I'll live to see my 70th birthday. This is getting less plausible. I'm in excellent health, so my belief is not unjustified. However, there are a lot of potential reasons I could be wrong. I'll have to survive the riots during the Global Economic Collapse of 2017. The cancer diagnosis in 2025. The Zombie Apocalypse of 2034. The alien invasion of 2049. None of that's assured. I believe it's more likely that I live 70 years than that I don't, but it's wildly speculative.

Do I believe there's a supreme being?

Do I believe that there's a supreme being and that he revealed his existence directly only to a tribe of genocidal desert mooks?

Do I believe that there's a supreme being and that he revealed his existence directly only to a tribe of genocidal desert mooks and then sent himself to live among us and we killed him?

Do I believe that there's a supreme being and that he revealed his existence directly to a tribe of genocidal desert mooks and then to another guy who got killed and then to another desert mook a few hundred years later?

My personal feelings are that even if I could swallow the idea of a supreme being, the decidedly odd stories that the major faiths tell about him don't seem very plausible.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Definition of "faith": Emphasis mine:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

Debate over.

No, debate not over. Some people do base their belief on logic, just as I said. Some people's belief is based on faith, other people's belief is based on logic.

Edited October 7, 2013 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

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?

I agree, but only provisionally. The crude, fundamentalist, God is a giant, humanoid, physical entity sort of belief...I do consider that to be Cosmic Gummy Bear stuff.

However, the metaphor-laden versions are another matter. I'm just not feeling them, but that doesn't seem to me too relevant.

For example, my father goes to church every Sunday, and he calls himself a Christian.

Yet he doesn't believe in the Divinity of Christ. (To many people, this disqualifies him from being called a "Christian," but neither he nor I cares too much).

Rather, he takes comfort and meaning in the idea that a community of people worship the idea of moral perfection, of love being the most important human quality, and how it is symbolized in the story of a really cool Rabbi named Jesus.

I don't see anything to object to.

Edited October 7, 2013 by bleeding heart

[carepov]

...

Thanks again, it looks like we are on the same page.

[BubberMiley]

Some people's belief is based on faith, other people's belief is based on logic.

Some people think their beliefs are based on logic because they aren't sure what logic means.

[GostHacked]

No, debate not over. Some people do base their belief on logic, just as I said. Some people's belief is based on faith, other people's belief is based on logic.

Not a fan of english dictionaries eh?

[carepov]

Only in that "God" and "Cosmic Gummy Bear" are different words.

Why?

What would make the Cosmic Gummy Bear any more or less plausible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or The Great Pumpkin, or Zeus, or Yahweh?

...

-k

Bonam and kimmy,

With these responses it seems like you are painting all religious believers with the same brush. I think that it is important to distinguish between the fundamentalist believers (vocal minority) and the typical Canadian believer that is more like bleeding heart's dad.

[GostHacked]

Bonam and kimmy,

With these responses it seems like you are painting all religious believers with the same brush. I think that it is important to distinguish between the fundamentalist believers (vocal minority) and the typical Canadian believer that is more like bleeding heart's dad.

No Bonam and Kimmy are not broadstroking it all. They have asked pointed questions that some of the faithful are unwilling or simply unable to answer with out any kind of real reasoning or logic.

One of Kimmy's points now is lost in the pages where she talked specifically about all the crazy stuff religious people try to enforce on the rest of the public when only a minority support a given notion. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a mock creation to mock creationism specifically.

Logically no one believes in the FSM, for the fact he was clearly made up and is not real. But the other side of that is that I cannot prove that the FSM is really NOT real.

I cannot prove god is real, but that is not my job to prove. It's also not my job to disprove, since that is also impossible. Yes, impossible.

[Moonlight Graham]

No, debate not over. Some people do base their belief on logic, just as I said. Some people's belief is based on faith, other people's belief is based on logic.

Yes, this is true. I guess there's a disagreement between atheists and God-believers on the validity of belief based on faith.

[Moonlight Graham]

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?

I'm with Kimmy and Bonam on this one. There's about the same amount of evidence for each. By far the biggest evidence that Christians have for their beliefs is contained in a book, the Bible. Therefore, many of their beliefs are based on heresay. It takes a heck of a lot of faith to believe what the Bible says is the world of God, especially given the history of the Bible's making, which most Christians have little knowledge of. ie: To say a Pope's choosing and editing of books in the Bible is "divine intervention" is an odd belief.

One of the biggest problems I have with a lot of Christians and other religious folk is when they fail to really critically examine their beliefs. Then it becomes belief based on ignorance as much as "faith". If you're going to believe something so serious and will affect our world, I think you should do your homework.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

Some people think their beliefs are based on logic because they aren't sure what logic means.

Or they're absolutely certain of what logic means because they've made up their own definition.

[GostHacked]

Yes, this is true. I guess there's a disagreement between atheists and God-believers on the validity of belief based on faith.

Poppycock! That's just your opinion.

[Guest American Woman]

Or they're absolutely certain of what logic means because they've made up their own definition.

That's your take on it.

As I said, either logic is not absolute as you claimed or those who don't believe in a god/gods can't base their belief on logic either. But of course you don't accuse them of making up their own definition. .

Edited October 7, 2013 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

As I said, either logic is not absolute as you claimed or those who don't believe in a god/gods can't base their belief on logic either.

Is it logical to describe a lack of belief as belief?

[bleeding heart]

Is it logical to describe a lack of belief as belief?

In the pedantic argument, in which "belief" is used to imply some sort of equality between every thing that any person can think about anything...yes, there is a circular logic to it.

But since the argument is only ever used to defend religious faith, and not a single other unproven belief...we can dispense with it as not serious.

Edited October 7, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

In the pedantic argument, in which "belief" is used to imply some sort of equality between every thing that any person can think about anything...yes, there is a circular logic to it.

You mean in the sense that it is logical? Logical, but pedantic. Gotta love it.

What's pedantic is insisting that 'I have a disbelief that there is a god' is somehow different from 'it's my belief that there is no god.'

[carepov]

I'm with Kimmy and Bonam on this one. There's about the same amount of evidence for each. By far the biggest evidence that Christians have for their beliefs is contained in a book, the Bible. Therefore, many of their beliefs are based on heresay. It takes a heck of a lot of faith to believe what the Bible says is the world of God, especially given the history of the Bible's making, which most Christians have little knowledge of. ie: To say a Pope's choosing and editing of books in the Bible is "divine intervention" is an odd belief.

IMO most Christians do not believe all the things that you think they beliive, such as "the Bible is the word of God". There is a whole range of different beliefs, some "Christians" would actually have atheist beliefs, some believe "God exists and Jesus was a cool dude", some believe in all the miracles, and some do believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. About half of Christians acknowledge the Pope as a leader, IMO very few would believe that he is "divine".

The crazy fundamentalist beliefs of a vocal minority should not be used to pre-judge the beliefs and values of the silent majority. This is true of Christianity, Islam, or in fact any diverse group of people.

One of the biggest problems I have with a lot of Christians and other religious folk is when they fail to really critically examine their beliefs. Then it becomes belief based on ignorance as much as "faith". If you're going to believe something so serious and will affect our world, I think you should do your homework.

Yes, I have a problem with anyone not critically examining their beliefs - religious or not.

What makes you think that religious folk "fail to really critically examine their beliefs"? Seems to me that most people of faith do this regularly - and IMO more importantly they seem to critically examine their actions more than the average non-religious person.

[guyser]

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.

Edited to remove sillyness.

I am sorry. You actually may believe that load of crap.

I am sorry for you.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Guyser2

[BubberMiley]

What's pedantic is insisting that 'I have a disbelief that there is a god' is somehow different from 'it's my belief that there is no god.'

You didn't understand the jellybean analogy? It was perfectly clear. "I have a disbelief that there is an even number of jellybeans" is very different from "I have a belief that there is an odd number of jellybeans."

All this fuss over a failure to comprehend the basic concepts of the debate.

[Moonlight Graham]

IMO most Christians do not believe all the things that you think they beliive, such as "the Bible is the word of God".

Yes I realize this. But my point is that if you don't believe the Bible is the "word of God", then what is in the Bible is simply heresay. Therefore, many of your beliefs are based on heresay. How can one have any confidence whatsoever that anything in the Bible quoting Jesus or describing his actions are truthful whatsoever?

What makes you think that religious folk "fail to really critically examine their beliefs"?

Not all religious folk, just most. I say this because if they did examine their beliefs, they couldn't possibly believe what they do because they'd know much of it was based on things people just made up and threw into the Bible. Historical scholars have shown this. They also wouldn't worship just the books contained within the Bible, since the books contained within were chosen and edited by religious authorities long after Jesus' death. There are tons of gospels not contained in the Bible.

Most religious folk believe mainly what they were indoctrinated to believe. What they were taught by their parents and teachers & preachers to be the truth. How many Jewish people grow up and realize "oh hey, maybe Jesus was indeed the son of God, so I'm going to become a Christian now!". Not many. That shows that most religious folk go along believing mainly what they were brought up to believe. How many religious people actually sit down, critically examine all religions (and even different denominations within their own religion) and their beliefs, and then choose which is best on an objective basis based on the beliefs themselves, not on what they grew up believing?

[carepov]

Yes I realize this. But my point is that if you don't believe the Bible is the "word of God", then what is in the Bible is simply heresay. Therefore, many of your beliefs are based on heresay. How can one have any confidence whatsoever that anything in the Bible quoting Jesus or describing his actions are truthful whatsoever?

I am no Bible expert but am pretty sure that most Christian's opinion is that the Bible is neither the "word of God" nor "simply hearsay". Perhaps it is a great collection of metaphorical stories with a few historical facts thrown in?

Not all religious folk, just most. I say this because if they did examine their beliefs, they couldn't possibly believe what they do...

This is the crux of my disagreement with you: we do not know what most religious folk believe.

Not all religious folk, just most. ...They also wouldn't worship just the books contained within the Bible..

arggh: A tiny minority of religious people "worship the Bible"!

Most religious folk believe mainly what they were indoctrinated to believe. What they were taught by their parents and teachers & preachers to be the truth.

Again I strongly disagree. Do you have any evidence of this claim, or are you taking a leap of faith?

A common pattern I see is that people raised in religious families reject their religion in their teens then some return to it or their spouse's religion when they have kids. There are probably as many reasons for doing this as there are people doing it. Some may be inspired by a true belief. Some just want to raise their kids in the same way they were. Some want kids to spend more time with grand parents some want kids to learn about Jesus, some maybe afraid their kids will go to hell, some see the value of praying and developing an inner voice...

I don't think anyone really knows "what most religious folks believe".

How many religious people actually sit down, critically examine all religions (and even different denominations within their own religion) and their beliefs, and then choose which is best on an objective basis based on the beliefs themselves, not on what they grew up believing?

IMO most practicing religious people do this. They make their decisions based on their beliefs but also based on many other factors: the proximity of the place of worship, values of the people in the group, business networking possibilities, social activities, the work/sacrifice involved in being a member, ....

[GostHacked]

I am no Bible expert but am pretty sure that most Christian's opinion is that the Bible is neither the "word of God" nor "simply hearsay". Perhaps it is a great collection of metaphorical stories with a few historical facts thrown in?

Then that kind of puts this God into a very precarious situation. If simply metaphors then what are these metaphors based on and was any meaning lost in translation along the way? Why the need for new testaments if the old ones worked?

This is the crux of my disagreement with you: we do not know what most religious folk believe.

Based on what though?

arggh: A tiny minority of religious people "worship the Bible"!

You may be right. Please raise your right hand and your left on the bible, and repeat after me. ......

Again I strongly disagree. Do you have any evidence of this claim, or are you taking a leap of faith?

More or less anecdotal evidence when conversing with said religious people.

But what made god? Is there something above god?

A common pattern I see is that people raised in religious families reject their religion in their teens then some return to it or their spouse's religion when they have kids. There are probably as many reasons for doing this as there are people doing it. Some may be inspired by a true belief. Some just want to raise their kids in the same way they were. Some want kids to spend more time with grand parents some want kids to learn about Jesus, some maybe afraid their kids will go to hell, some see the value of praying and developing an inner voice...

The inner voice is yours and yours alone. No one else is speaking to you.

[Moonlight Graham]

This is the crux of my disagreement with you: we do not know what most religious folk believe.

Of course we do. For example, most religious people believe in a God or God(s).

Again I strongly disagree. Do you have any evidence of this claim, or are you taking a leap of faith?

I just told you my evidence. Most religious people don't switch religions from the one they were raised believing. You can't prove me wrong on that.

There's a lot of people who reject religion altogether when they grow older, but for those that remain religious throughout their lives, most of them stick with the same one they were brought up on.

IMO most practicing religious people do this.

They absolutely do not. I grew up Christian and don't know anyone personally who has done that.

Also, how can you say "This is the crux of my disagreement with you: we do not know what most religious folk believe." and yet you just make the exact same claim. It's ok when you do it and not me?

[Guest American Woman]

They absolutely do not. I grew up Christian and don't know anyone personally who has done that.

There are a lot of denominations within Christianity with a great variation among their beliefs. One can remain a Christian and still have beliefs that vary greatly from those they were brought up with. I believe that a helluva lot more "religious people actually sit down, critically examine all religions (and even different denominations within their own religion) and their beliefs, and then choose which is best on an objective basis based on the beliefs themselves, not on what they grew up believing" than you give credit for. I know many, many people who have done this.