12 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'm just saying that, in the same vein as the idea of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", that God cannot be found through evidence so all that remains is faith. In this case, the case of God, I'm calling faith the exact "extraordinary evidence" that is required.
Oh, yes I've said it before.
The argument between us is simply over whether or not faith is a valid method of
forming beliefs.
That dispute covers almost the entirety of our disagreements.
Although our disagreement over capital punishment is probably independent of that.
However the point of my previous post was that I don't know I have a ...[text shortened]... ientific
proof here][/i]
Flying fish don't make god more likely. But then you knew that.
(**Warning, you might have to relax your grip on the exact dictionary definitions of "evidence" and "faith" here, otherwise you'll just naysay the concept and blow it off even before thinking twice about the idea.)
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneIf god cannot be proved by evidence then god cannot be proved.
I'm just saying that, in the same vein as the idea of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", that God cannot be found through evidence so all that remains is faith. In this case, the case of God, I'm calling faith the exact "extraordinary evidence" that is required.
(**Warning, you might have to relax your grip on the exact dictionary de ...[text shortened]... rwise you'll just naysay the concept and blow it off even before thinking twice about the idea.)
And we move onto something else.
If it can't be sufficiently demonstrated you don't believe.
And faith isn't extraordinary, it's unhealthily common.
It's rationality that's rare, because rationality is hard.
Brains tend to do faith by default.
Also, I agree there are many meanings of the word faith.
However I object not to the word but the meaning I ascribe to it.
Belief without, or despite, evidence.
That is always wrong.
Evidence... only has the one meaning.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by googlefudgei concur. i had a brief dalliance with god as a child, but only as a whimsical 'isnt magic fun' kinda way, which disappeared by the age of 10.
I can't reject an offer I don't believe is real.
I guess I'm just wondering aloud if somehow atheists feel (unconsciously, perhaps) that this
actual rejection is the closing of a door and therefore they somehow shy away from actually admitting
their (action of) rejection.
This is probably because you just don't understand how ath ...[text shortened]... n every day life.
So, why not just trust us when we tell you what it is we think and why?
i find the 'just decide to believe' alien, i cannot understand how a person can reconcile the fact that they believe something only because they just decided too. to me its like being on a jury, it would be crazy to believe somebody was a murderer by just deciding. i decision must be based on evidence. if you just decide then how do you know you are not just deluding yourself? how do you differentiate between truth and personal desire? 'just deciding to believe' removes rationality, we are then left with no yard stick of objectivity, sanity, or morality.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieGee, that almost sounds as though you're saying anyone who believes is either naive or nuts.
i concur. i had a brief dalliance with god as a child, but only as a whimsical 'isnt magic fun' kinda way. i find the 'just decide to believe' alien, i cannot understand how a person can reconcile the fact that they believe something only because they just decided too. to me its like being on a jury, it would be crazy to believe somebody was a murderer ...[text shortened]... e' removes rationality, we are then left with no yard stick of objectivity, sanity, or morality.
But I know you wouldn't suggest the lack of rationality as a factor, given the overwhelming majority of people who view the same information and come to a completely different conclusion than you do. Doing so would be either naive or nuts.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'm (maybe) grasping at things we might have in common. It's hard for me to grasp believing in nothing. It seems dull and a one way ticket to nowhere. There has to be more to this whole life thing than as an exercise in futility.
I believe in all kinds of things. being an atheist doesn't mean I have no beliefs.
I just don't believe in gods [or afterlives, souls, the supernatural ect]
What I tend to believe in, is people. I'm, among other things, a Humanist.
I have a moral system, and I have beliefs about the way the world works, and
what happens when I die...
Why are Buddhists ideas more valid because theirs stem from a religion?
I've said before, regarding the universe, that science is the how and religion is the why. And yes, I AM concerned with 'why'. Having no reason 'why' just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it's (going back to the last paragraph) because even Buddhists also want to know the 'why'. Atheists say there is no 'why', and that just sounds like the ultimate bummer to me.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Suziannewhy is it a bummer? surely not having the shackles of a fixed religion gives us the freedom to create our own purpose. over the next few million years humanity can branch out in all kinds of direction based on the desire of people. giving your life your own meaning is way cooler than being told you are nothing but a love drone of some heavenly megalomaniac and its arbitrary moral code.
I'm (maybe) grasping at things we might have in common. It's hard for me to grasp believing in nothing. It seems dull and a one way ticket to nowhere. There has to be more to this whole life thing than as an exercise in futility.
I've said before, regarding the universe, that science is the how and religion is the why. And yes, I AM concerned with 'w ...[text shortened]... the 'why'. Atheists say there is no 'why', and that just sounds like the ultimate bummer to me.
12 Dec 13
Too lazy to read the whole thread.
Has anyone mentioned that we don't like the word 'reject' because of the stereotypical argument that we secretly believe there is a god, but want nothing to do with it? So it's like we have rejected a relationship with god instead of rejecting the idea that a god exists.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by SwissGambitI read it; thought it was very insightful.
Too lazy to read the whole thread.
Has anyone mentioned that we don't like the word 'reject' because of the stereotypical argument that we secretly believe there is a god, but want nothing to do with it? So it's like we have rejected a relationship with god instead of rejecting the idea that a god exists.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeA little thinking 'outside the box' is healthy. I've done enough of it today. For an atheist, you seem extraordinarily fixed in your thinking. It sounds exactly like what you accuse theists of, on occasion.
If god cannot be proved by evidence then god cannot be proved.
And we move onto something else.
If it can't be sufficiently demonstrated you don't believe.
And faith isn't extraordinary, it's unhealthily common.
It's rationality that's rare, because rationality is hard.
Brains tend to do faith by default.
Also, I agree there are man ...[text shortened]... without, or despite, evidence.
That is always wrong.
Evidence... only has the one meaning.
Now we move to what really bugs me about atheists, which is this entire idea that religion is 'dangerous'. This makes me defensive. All it takes is one 'nutjob' out there to decide that we need to 'round-up' or 'eliminate' these 'dangerous' people and suddenly, I'm dodging bullets.
Also, I agree there are many meanings of the word faith.See, here's the difference between you and me. I say the opposite. Faith is one thing, it is basically the freedom to believe. Evidence can be anything. Whatever it takes to prove your theory. And in THIS case, the case of God, faith IS the evidence. It is the only way to experience God in full. Oh, yeah, and faith is *never* wrong. When one obsesses on faith and starts believing, for example, that 'God' is telling them to kill people, yeah, that's wrong, but that's not real faith, either.
However I object not to the word but the meaning I ascribe to it.
Belief without, or despite, evidence.
That is always wrong.
Evidence... only has the one meaning.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneOk, well I don't agree that having no 'ultimate why' is a 'bummer'...
I'm (maybe) grasping at things we might have in common. It's hard for me to grasp believing in nothing. It seems dull and a one way ticket to nowhere. There has to be more to this whole life thing than as an exercise in futility.
I've said before, regarding the universe, that science is the how and religion is the why. And yes, I AM concerned with 'w ...[text shortened]... the 'why'. Atheists say there is no 'why', and that just sounds like the ultimate bummer to me.
But it's not an uncommon feeling and i can recognise that people have it...
However if you let that be a reason to believe that there is a god that provides
you with the 'ultimate why' you desire...
You have stopped caring if what you believe is true, and are simply believing
what makes you feel good.
I can't and won't do that.
To me knowing the truth is more important than whether that truth is nice.
And again, I don't believe nothing, I believe lots of things... Just no supernatural things.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by SwissGambitYep. done that bit.
Too lazy to read the whole thread.
Has anyone mentioned that we don't like the word 'reject' because of the stereotypical argument that we secretly believe there is a god, but want nothing to do with it? So it's like we have rejected a relationship with god instead of rejecting the idea that a god exists.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by SwissGambitYeah, we covered that. 🙂
Too lazy to read the whole thread.
Has anyone mentioned that we don't like the word 'reject' because of the stereotypical argument that we secretly believe there is a god, but want nothing to do with it? So it's like we have rejected a relationship with god instead of rejecting the idea that a god exists.
Maybe it would help if we used words as they're defined and if we're going to relax those rules, THEN we provide a warning?
My patience has been strained before in this thread by certain people saying "Could you define that word?" Hmmmmm, I thought we *are* speaking English after all.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneSo how does one discern between 'Real Faith' and, I guess, 'Fake Faith'?
A little thinking 'outside the box' is healthy. I've done enough of it today. For an atheist, you seem extraordinarily fixed in your thinking. It sounds exactly like what you accuse theists of, on occasion.
Now we move to what really bugs me about atheists, which is this entire idea that religion is 'dangerous'. This makes me defensive. All it takes ...[text shortened]... hat 'God' is telling them to kill people, yeah, that's wrong, but that's not real faith, either.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieWe can't create a purpose for ourselves. I mean, sure, we CAN, but it is limited to the mundane... worldly... what I seek is beyond that.
why is it a bummer? surely not having the shackles of a fixed religion gives us the freedom to create our own purpose. over the next few million years humanity can branch out in all kinds of direction based on the desire of people. giving your life your own meaning is way cooler than being told you are nothing but a love drone of some heavenly megalomaniac and its arbitrary moral code.
You speak of 'the shackles of a fixed religion'. Jesus said (paraphrasing) Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Sin is the biggest set of shackles I know. It holds us back. Jesus came to free us from that.
Okay, /soapboxmode off.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by Suzianne1. Relaxing the grip. Nope.
(**Warning, you might have to relax your grip on the exact dictionary definitions of "evidence" and "faith" here, otherwise you'll just naysay the concept and blow it off even before thinking twice about the idea.)
2. Naysay the concept. Check.
3. Blow it off completely. Check.
4. Thinking twice about the idea. Nope.
😞