Support NeoGAF

[soul creator]

dropping them ill rhymes for the lord!

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150208006915385

 

[JGS]

Haven't been here for a few days so missed this.

You didn't answer my question. I'm not asking about the standards of science or myself. I'm asking about you, and why you claim you require evidence you can see to accept scientific theory such as speciation, but appear to have no such personal requirement to support your belief in God. You say you need speciation to be "proven" to accept it (well beyond the standards of science itself), but you require God to be disproven before you would consider stopping believing.

I'm at the same place you are. You require proof for God's existence or don't care about it. I require proof for for all the ways speciation exists. I cannot have the leaps in assumptions you do regarding it.

I do have personal support for God's existence. I'm not quite sure why you thought I didn't. I just can't prove it for you. It's the same as the proof you have that still prevents you from showing it to me.

How can YOU hold concepts like speciation to a higher burden of proof than science itself before you will accept them, and require little to no proof to support your belief in God?

I don't. I required tons of proof to support my belief in God. Again, I was told by many here that scientific methods don't apply with religious belief so you can't compare the two in terms of the proof required.

As for your general view on speciation, your comments over the last few pages appear inconsistent to me, and certainly not "clear and unambiguous" as you have claimed. Some quote mining reveals some comments which appear to conflict

That's because you are looking at things in black and white as your last question to me makes clear. The answer is simple and unambiguos. I believe the aspects of it that are proven, I have no reason to believe the ones that aren't- primarily jumps across species or kingdoms even if those jumps are million year long ones. In any event, it doesn't have anything t do with my belief in God.

So, let us settle this with a simple question and a one word answer.

Do you believe natural speciation is possible? Yes or no.

If only life and opinion were that simple.

 

[JGS]

Why wouldn't he know? I'm not even asking for exact details. I'm fine with Genesis not being a literal account, I'm fine with it being metaphorical and not being a science book. But I am NOT fine with the supposed omniscient creator of the universe inspiring a text that contains obvious falsehoods. If you take it more literally, there is absolutely nothing in Genesis that lines up with science. If you grant that it's not supposed to be an exact represantation, there is still no reason for it to contain such errors as birds appearing before land animals. I'm pretty tired of your wishy washy "It's not supposed to be exactly accurate" rhetoric. There was every reason in the world for God to make His special book believable, but He chooses not to take such obvious steps as informing his scribes the real order in which animals appeared. I only ask, why? It's utterly baffling to me considering that whether or not we believe the Bible is everything in Christianity. Believing the Bible is what determines your salvation, so wouldn't God, in His omnibenevolence, want to make it as believable as possible? From what you're telling me, I gather that God is a bumbling buffoon who doesn't understand or care that telling people birds appeared before land animals might hurt his credibility somewhat.

The "omniscient" creator would know what the writer's of his book would understand.

I've already explained all of your other arguments a million times before so not much point in retyping it.

The Bible is totally believeable. People have only just started questioning the order and even now can't actually verify the oprder they are ranting so strongly about. It's simply not believeable to you. Why rain on my fantasyland parade?

Am I offending you based on my beliefs and if so who the heck cares?

But Genesis doesn't actually tell anyone where they came from. Sure, it's an answer, but now we know that it's not true. For example, women didn't come from man's rib. So did God lie? Did God inspire Genesis at all?

Uhh, so it's been proven that men and women don't share DNA that could found in just about any body part. Now there's a discovery!

JGS, do you care whether your beliefs are true or not?

Of course I do. Prove them to be false and I'll stop believeing in them.

The real question is do you care that you haven't proven them to be false? Of course you don't!:lol

 

[JGS]

The bold is -exactly- why I have continued to discuss this with you for the last few days. You keep saying things like this, consistently, and I take it as a cue to provide that information you seem to desire.

I can't anymore, I am done. I'll probably be back eventually for the same reason as above.

I don't mind you providing more information. Feel free to. I look at it in the evolution thread that I "trolled" and subsequently self-banned myself from. However, that is possible to do without comments about my beliefs and how whacky they are when I've explained them at the wazoo.

You can do that too, but it's silly to think I would not see the obvious ulterior motive that i always know is there- painting me in a corner.

 

[Rapstah]

I don't. I required tons of proof to support my belief in God. Again, I was told by many here that scientific methods don't apply with religious belief so you can't compare the two in terms of the proof required.

Since you've basically said at least once in this thread that you (cursive to separate from the general "one"-style "you", not intented to be demeaning) don't need proof to believe in god, how can the bolded be true?

 

[JGS]

Since you've basically said at least once in this thread that you (cursive to separate from the general "one"-style "you", not intented to be demeaning) don't need proof to believe in god, how can the bolded be true?

Where did I say that?

I said I have my proof but it's not my job o prove it to others which is quite a bit different.

 

[Kinitari]

I can't believe I'm doing this to myself.

JGS, is there any amount of evidence that is within human capability that would convince you of the authenticity of speciation?

 

[Dever]

The Bible is totally believeable. People have only just started questioning the order and even now can't actually verify the oprder they are ranting so strongly about. It's simply not believeable to you. Why rain on my fantasyland parade?

Am I offending you based on my beliefs and if so who the heck cares?

I was kind of frustrated when I wrote that, so I'm sorry if that post sounded a bit ranting(Which it did). And you're right, as long as you don't force your beliefs on anyone else or actively cause harm because of your beliefs, I shouldn't care that much.

Uhh, so it's been proven that men and women don't share DNA that could found in just about any body part. Now there's a discovery!

Your beliefs about the origins of things are really confusing. You stated that you believe in evolution, but you don't think whales evolved from land creatures. You said speciation is pretty much impossible, but now you've stated you never denied it either. From this statement I assume you do believe women were created from Adam's rib, but that flies completely in the face of modern women simply evolving alongside men from our distant non-human ancestors. So I gather you don't think humans evolved?
It might be helpful if you could make some sort of timeline of how you believe things came about.

Of course I do. Prove them to be false and I'll stop believeing in them.

You say you do care about your beliefs being true, but your very next sentence completely betrays that. Look, say for example that I believe the universe was burped into existence by a cosmic platypus. I also say I passionately care about all my beliefs being true, so I won't stop believing the cosmic platypus theory of creation until someone proves that it's false. Would you say my worldview is honest and defensible? Claims are not validated if they can't be proven wrong. If I truly cared about my belief in the cosmic platypus being true, I would also present evidence in favor of it, not just go "Neener, neener, you can't prove it wrong so I have no reason not to believe it".

For me, the default position is disbelief until convincing evidence is presented. For you, it's apparently belief until disproven? I'm just trying to be consistent and apply the same standard of evidence for these types of claims. Why aren't you a muslim? It's not like Islam has been proven false any more than Christianity has been. This also applies to any deity. None of them have been really disproven, but you only believe in one, strictly because it hasn't been disproven.

Or hey, you just recently saw Inception right? Me too. *Inception spoilers*

Spoiler

Would you say that Mal was reasonable in believing that her world wasn't real because Cobbs couldn't prove her wrong?

The real question is do you care that you haven't proven them to be false? Of course you don't!:lol

Yeah, I don't care. Just like I don't care that I haven't proven the Scientologists wrong.

EDIT:

I required tons of proof to support my belief in God

Just noticed this, I guess I might've been wrong about your position in my post. Would you mind sharing some of this proof? And no, "It hasn't been proven wrong" so doesn't count.

 

[JGS]

Your beliefs about the origins of things are really confusing. You stated that you believe in evolution, but you don't think whales evolved from land creatures. You said speciation is pretty much impossible, but now you've stated you never denied it either. From this statement I assume you do believe women were created from Adam's rib, but that flies completely in the face of modern women simply evolving alongside men from our distant non-human ancestors. So I gather you don't think humans evolved?
It might be helpful if you could make some sort of timeline of how you believe things came about.

Here is what I've stated & I still don't see what's confusing about it:

- I believe God was instrumental in our creation.

- Creation does not contradict science.

- I don't believe that animals can cross breed. Unless I'm missing the point on speciation, it's not saying that either, but considering the range of answers & accusation I'm getting I'm not sure anymore.

- Whether evolution is proven or not has no impact on my belief in God, but the arguments often come back to the idea of why I believe in God since EVERYTHING is wrong based on the first couple of chapters of the Bible which leads to the next point:

- The Bible is not a science book which is why only a couple of chapters are discussing how life got here to begin with. However, the chapters are fine and dandy for a basic understanding of how life came about.

You say you do care about your beliefs being true, but your very next sentence completely betrays that. Look, say for example that I believe the universe was burped into existence by a cosmic platypus. I also say I passionately care about all my beliefs being true, so I won't stop believing the cosmic platypus theory of creation until someone proves that it's false. Would you say my worldview is honest and defensible? Claims are not validated if they can't be proven wrong. If I truly cared about my belief in the cosmic platypus being true, I would also present evidence in favor of it, not just go "Neener, neener, you can't prove it wrong so I have no reason not to believe it".

To me, you're looking at it as an either/or scenario. I have no problems believing evolutionary theory and God. Further I would believe in God without the need for the first couple of chapters of Genesis. So the idea that creation itself is my proof is mistaken. The purose of the Bible transcends the answer to how we got here just like science transcends the origins of life too.

For me, the default position is disbelief until convincing evidence is presented. For you, it's apparently belief until disproven? I'm just trying to be consistent and apply the same standard of evidence for these types of claims. Why aren't you a muslim? It's not like Islam has been proven false any more than Christianity has been. This also applies to any deity. None of them have been really disproven, but you only believe in one, strictly because it hasn't been disproven.

I think we have the same stand on matters, it's just that we accept different types of proof depending on what's being discussed. Plus, our opinions define what proof we accept. perception is reality.

I'm not a Muslim because Allah, from how it is explained to me, doesn't match up to God of the OT or NT. I believe that all prophecy pertaining to a Messiah was tied to Jesus and Muhammed means nothing in particular to me so why would I follow his teachings that are at least slightly defferent than the Scriptures?

However, belief is not tied to a requirement of me proving it to others and to do so would be to explain the entirety of Scripture to people notreally interested/in agreement with it to begin with. Although not presented here, I would have a hard time believeing that disagreement over interpretting data don't still exist in the scientific world. It's much the same way in religion.

Or hey, you just recently saw Inception right? Me too. *Inception spoilers*

Spoiler

Would you say that Mal was reasonable in believing that her world wasn't real because Cobbs couldn't prove her wrong?

The assumption would be that my religious bliss was making me see the world differently. It doesn't do that.

Spoiler

Mal was nutty as a fruit cake. Based on the parameters of the movie (& what your opinion is about the ending), he did prove to her that limbo wasn't real, she just held onto it.

I'm not doing that here and have been pretty open minded. Religion is not driving me crazy and I talk about other things like everybody else including science.

Just noticed this, I guess I might've been wrong about your position in my post. Would you mind sharing some of this proof? And no, "It hasn't been proven wrong" so doesn't count.

I did already, but I'll go ahead and add some more controversial stuff like prophecy being fulfilled, history, the changes made in one's life because of following the Bible. now most of these proofs are dismissed here so it's kind of pointless to attempt to convince ones beyond the initial skepticism. Plus the proofs would require a lot of study and more conversation than a forum allows just to fail at tryng to accomplish something that really isn't worth the time or effort.

 

[soul creator]

I'm not a Christian because Jesus Christ and Yahweh, from how it is explained to me, don't match up to the God of the Koran. I believe that all prophecy pertaining to a spiritual leader was tied to Muhammed and Jesus means nothing in particular to me so why would I follow his teachings that are at least slightly different from what's in the Koran?

aka, "I am a Christian/Muslim/etc. because I like it more". Cool.

 

[Dever]

To me, you're looking at it as an either/or scenario. I have no problems believing evolutionary theory and God. Further I would believe in God without the need for the first couple of chapters of Genesis. So the idea that creation itself is my proof is mistaken. The purose of the Bible transcends the answer to how we got here just like science transcends the origins of life too.

¨But you clearly do not believe in evolutionary theory. The very backbone of evolutionary theory is that all life is related to a common ancestor. It's pretty basic science taught in every textbook on the subject.

As for prophecies about Jesus in the OT, that never was very persuasive to me. Or actually that is a lie, because I distinctly remember wondering why religious jews would even exist anymore when someone such as Jesus had come along and fulfilled their messianic prophecies. :lol But it's not very persuasive to me anymore. The NT writers had access to OT scriptures, so they could've easily fabricated events and details to make the prophecies fit. Easy as stealing candy from a baby. Why should I prefer that completely natural and plausible explanation to the supernatural one? Also many would argue that Jesus as portrayed in the NT doesn't even do such an impressive job of fulfilling the messianic prophecies, such as this guy in his 5-part video series on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx5EKaY1B8g

edit: also the "changes made to one's life from following holy book x" claim is made and fulfilled by basically all religions. People have had life changing positive experiences from becoming muslims, buddhists etc. The joy and positive changes that believing a claim can bring doesn't make any more true.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm not a Christian because Jesus Christ and Yahweh, from how it is explained to me, don't match up to the God of the Koran. I believe that all prophecy pertaining to a spiritual leader was tied to Muhammed and Jesus means nothing in particular to me so why would I follow his teachings that are at least slightly different from what's in the Koran?

aka, "I am a Christian/Muslim/etc. because I like it more". Cool.

I believe in the Bible because the Bible says I should.

 

[JGS]

¨But you clearly do not believe in evolutionary theory. The very backbone of evolutionary theory is that all life is related to a common ancestor. It's pretty basic science taught in every textbook on the subject.

That would also mean that evolutionary theory mandates God does not exists right? If that's the backbone then I guess I don't believe in it.

I was not aware and still don't see why it has to be an all or nothing thing, but I'll take your word for it.

As for prophecies about Jesus in the OT, that never was very persuasive to me. Or actually that is a lie, because I distinctly remember wondering why religious jews would even exist anymore when someone such as Jesus had come along and fulfilled their messianic prophecies. :lol But it's not very persuasive to me anymore. The NT writers had access to OT scriptures, so they could've easily fabricated events and details to make the prophecies fit. Easy as stealing candy from a baby. Why should I prefer that completely natural and plausible explanation to the supernatural one? Also many would argue that Jesus as portrayed in the NT doesn't even do such an impressive job of fulfilling the messianic prophecies, such as this guy in his 5-part video series on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx5EKaY1B8g

The bold is the reason there's no point in discussing it. Further, anyone who thinks it's easy to match centuries worth of material to more modern material has obviously never done it before. It is far easier to dismiss something outright than to figure out it's difficulty.

edit: also the "changes made to one's life from following holy book x" claim is made and fulfilled by basically all religions. People have had life changing positive experiences from becoming muslims, buddhists etc. The joy and positive changes that believing a claim can bring doesn't make any more true.

That's true technically which is why it's takes more than one particular element to make me think I have the right beliefs.

 

[JGS]

The proposition that you should justify is that your reading of Genesis is at all supported by the text itself, and thus that Genesis can be called an accurate account of creation.

So my understanding of Genesis is wrong, thus the account of genesis is wrong? OK.

Then justify how your interpretation has a basis in the text itself.

What do you mean basis in the text itself? Just genesis 1 and 2?

"Burden of proof" is also a term within philosophy. And, within philosophy, it's a concept that requires that every propositional claim (outside of "I don't know") be justified to a certain extent. Often this burden will be asymmetrical, but it will still exist.

Religion is not philosophy. Religious belief is justified to an extent, just not to yours. Surely philosophies don't require that standard.

You're simplifying the matter somewhat, at least in relation to my arguments.

I don't see how that's a simplification of the pages of stuff discussed.

Atheism or theological belief has got nothing to do with. I don't think that your belief in God is necessarily rational, but that belief is far removed from my other belief that your reading of Genesis is arbitrary and unsupported by the text. The latter is more to do with epistemology and standards of justification.

That's only because you don't actually talk to religious people. Instead you apparently tell them what they are supposed to believe. I am supposed to be a literalist, therefore I am wrong for not being so. I get it.

 

[JGS]

I'm not a Christian because Jesus Christ and Yahweh, from how it is explained to me, don't match up to the God of the Koran. I believe that all prophecy pertaining to a spiritual leader was tied to Muhammed and Jesus means nothing in particular to me so why would I follow his teachings that are at least slightly different from what's in the Koran?

aka, "I am a Christian/Muslim/etc. because I like it more". Cool.

Is there a problem with that?:lol

Very few could worship what they hate or dislike right?

 

[JGS]

I believe in the Bible because the Bible says I should.

Never said that and as usual with you, it's not relevant to the post!

Besides, it's better than believeing something because forum posters say I should!:lol

 

[KingGondo]

Shouldn't this just be renamed "The Official JGS Christianity Defense Force Thread"?

 

[JGS]

Shouldn't this just be renamed "The Official JGS Christianity Defense Force Thread"?

Tell me about it.

The thread is supposed to be about religious topics and instead has turned into me telling you my beliefs which are immediately rejected as being actual belief!:lol

There's no reason for me to leave the thread just because others lack the ability to think up topics which is kind of amazing considering the total amount of negative influence and blame gaming that can be thrown at all things non-atheistic.

Get to work heathens!!!:lol

 

[soul creator]

That would also mean that evolutionary theory mandates God does not exists right? If that's the backbone then I guess I don't believe in it.

You could still technically believe God exists. He'd just have to exist in a smaller and smaller corner, and more mental gymnastics are needed to fit it in. After all, it used to be thought that god sat down one "day" and planned out every species of animal. If you accept evolutionary theory (and if one claims to appreciate natural evidence, one should) this would strongly indicate that there was no specific "plan" for every species.

Or, I suppose one could technically say that God planned everything...to look exactly the same as if evolution without a specific plan occurred. This, of course, is the mental gymnastics I referred to earlier.

Is there a problem with that?

Very few could worship what they hate or dislike right?

The point that has been mentioned throughout the past however many pages is that whether you "like or dislike" something has no bearing on whether or not it actually exists. I've mentioned time and time again that whether you "like" god or not is your own personal business, and no one can take that from you, which is why it doesn't make for a very interesting discussion topic (especially with a nonbeliever, obviously). We know you like Christianity more. That's never been in dispute.

But if you happen to say "The biblical God I believe in did X" (and the Bible contains numerous instances of God actually doing things in the world we all live in), these are no longer just personal claims that come down to like/dislike. These are statements about the world we all live in, which opens them up to questions (and, well, asking for evidence). And, considering that so many people in our society base their entire lives on these claims, and make far reaching public decisions based on these claims, one would think it's worth verifying that they actually happened.

Shouldn't this just be renamed "The Official JGS Christianity Defense Force Thread"?

heh.

 

[Dude Abides]

Shouldn't this just be renamed "The Official JGS Christianity Defense Force Thread"?

Only if laughing smilies and non sequiturs qualify as a defense.

 

[Dever]

That would also mean that evolutionary theory mandates God does not exists right?

Absolutely not.

I was not aware and still don't see why it has to be an all or nothing thing, but I'll take your word for it.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, you can believe the parts of evolutionary theory that you see are well supported and reject those that aren't. But it does confuse people when you say you believe in evolution but don't believe humans share a common ancestor with other animals etc. Common ancestry is a pretty big deal in evolutionary theory. So maybe you'd want to say instead that you don't believe in common ancestry but accept that species can change through natural selection(They were just originally created by God, and birds before land animals, damn it).

The bold is the reason there's no point in discussing it. Further, anyone who thinks it's easy to match centuries worth of material to more modern material has obviously never done it before. It is far easier to dismiss something outright than to figure out it's difficulty.

Really? This is one of your big proofs for Christianity but you don't think there's point in discussing it?

 

[JGS]

You could still technically believe God exists. He'd just have to exist in a smaller and smaller corner, and more mental gymnastics are needed to fit it in. After all, it used to be thought that god sat down one "day" and planned out every species of animal. If you accept evolutionary theory (and if one claims to appreciate natural evidence, one should) this would strongly indicate that there was no specific "plan" for every species.

Or, I suppose one could technically say that God planned everything...to look exactly the same as if evolution without a specific plan occurred. This, of course, is the mental gymnastics I referred to earlier.

I agree it's reaching when there's no reason to. When the time comes to make God smaller and smaller I will. It ain't there yet-I assume it never will be.

The point that has been mentioned throughout the past however many pages is that whether you "like or dislike" something has no bearing on whether or not it actually exists. I've mentioned time and time again that whether you "like" god or not is your own personal business, and no one can take that from you, which is why it doesn't make for a very interesting discussion topic (especially with a nonbeliever, obviously). We know you like Christianity more. That's never been in dispute.

Who said discussion about religious beliefs have to be interesting?

Christians don't become so because it's easy. It's quite hard considering how many things are being done contrary to the teaching and then being told how wrong they are all the time. Howver, they do become it because they like what is taught and they like it because they feel it's true- that the basis for it, God, exists.

The comparison was supposedly based on the same God so existence wasn't the issue, but whether or not you agree with the tenets which from what I know, I don't with Islam and I'm assuming vice versa.

If it were Budhism which may be a faith that's possibly "easier" to practice (After all, Richard Gere is one), therefore more likeable, I would have a hard time following it because I didn't believe in it. Ditto for atheism since it's the easiest of them all. It only has to follow secular rules and guidelines and put up with us religious folk. However, I don't believe Nogod exists so...

But if you happen to say "The biblical God I believe in did X" (and the Bible contains numerous instances of God actually doing things in the world we all live in), these are no longer just personal claims that come down to like/dislike. These are statements about the world we all live in, which opens them up to questions (and, well, asking for evidence). And, considering that so many people in our society base their entire lives on these claims, and make far reaching public decisions based on these claims, one would think it's worth verifying that they actually happened.

This is an argument from the other thread. I don't think a lot of public decisions are religious ones and in fact decision are usually secular/godless based. Certainly nothing prophetic or creation based. How is public policy affected by the Genesis account exactly? It's not is the answer. How is Noah's flood impacting the world? It's not is the answer. So much of the Bible has no impact on anyone's lives even for people who believe in the Bible as a holy book.

 

[JGS]

Really? This is one of your big proofs for Christianity but you don't think there's point in discussing it?

There is a verse that people think of as insulting when it's really just stating a fact concerning pearls before swine.

The effort of discussing something that is valuable to me would be wasted on someone not really seeing the value. Since the person is perfectly content not knowing it, then no harm is done to him either.

So again, what I find as proof is not something I would expect you to find value in, so it's pointless. I've said this numerous times, it is not my job to convince someone to believe that does not want to.

 

[jdogmoney]

This is an argument from the other thread. I don't think a lot of public decisions are religious ones and in fact decision are usually secular/godless based. Certainly nothing prophetic or creation based. How is public policy affected by the Genesis account exactly? It's not is the answer. How is Noah's flood impacting the world? It's not is the answer. So much of the Bible has no impact on anyone's lives even for people who believe in the Bible as a holy book.

That's still not true.

 

[Dever]

There is a verse that people think of as insulting when it's really just stating a fact concerning pearls before swine.

The effort of discussing something that is valuable to me would be wasted on someone not really seeing the value. Since the person is perfectly content not knowing it, then no harm is done to him either.

So again, what I find as proof is not something I would expect you to find value in, so it's pointless. I've said this numerous times, it is not my job to convince someone to believe that does not want to.

I only want to believe the truth. Maybe I'll look somewhere else for info about this prophecy thing, but as far as I know, there's nothing that conclusively proves supernatural influence. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me why.

It's pretty awesome though how we've been explaining evolution to you for God knows how many pages, but the second you're asked to prove your beliefs you say it would be throwing pearls before swine. I'm done with this.

 

[gerg]

So my understanding of Genesis is wrong, thus the account of genesis is wrong? OK.

How can we claim that the Genesis account is accurate? By knowing that it is. Unless you want to engage in some circular reasoning whereby you know that the Genesis account is accurate because it is accurate, if we can't provide an epistemic justification as to how we can know x we can't claim that x is, in fact, the case.

Any epistemological claim to know that x will necessarily entail the metaphysical claim that x is the case; any metaphysical claim that x is the case will necessarily entail the epistemological claim that it is possible to know that x is the case. Epistemology is very closely linked to metaphysics.

What do you mean basis in the text itself? Just genesis 1 and 2?

In a way, I don't think the distinction matters. Any and all of the metaphysical claims made by the Bible, as a document which professes to be true (and which many argue that it does aim at truth), should be given a rational enquiry.

Religion is not philosophy.

Religious belief makes several metaphysical claims about the world. Ergo, it engages in the philosophical fields of epistemology and metaphysics.

Religious belief is justified to an extent, just not to yours.

Actually, I'm not sure that's the case.

Surely philosophies don't require that standard.

Philosophers require that beliefs have justification, yes.

I don't see how that's a simplification of the pages of stuff discussed.

I'm afraid that time has made me lose my train of thought here.

That's only because you don't actually talk to religious people. Instead you apparently tell them what they are supposed to believe.

Not only is this a horrible non sequitor, but it is patently false. Up until July of this year, in fact, I worked pretty much every week at my local synagogue as an art assistant at the weekly religious school. Some of my oldest friends are from this religious school.

And while my religious belief has terribly waned over the years, I have the utmost respect for the rabbi of that congregation. If I were to get into a discussion over the matter with him I would only tell him what I believe - that I can't accept that his belief in God is rational - but I would also tell him that I don't think that that matters because not only are his moral beliefs seemingly justifiable - the synagogue performs gay ceremonies, for example - but that what he does seems to serve only to encourage people to live decent, moral lives and provides the congregation with a sense of comfort, however irrational that comfort may be.

I am supposed to be a literalist, therefore I am wrong for not being so.

I don't see how this accurately reflects my argument.

 

[jdogmoney]

Can I legitimately call myself a Buddhist if I think of it only in terms of a philosophy?

I mean, the Buddha himself said to believe nothing unless it agreed with your own common sense, and pretty much everything that can be directly attributed to the guy is a good idea...

 

[Ashes]

You could still technically believe God exists. He'd just have to exist in a smaller and smaller corner, and more mental gymnastics are needed to fit it in. After all, it used to be thought that god sat down one "day" and planned out every species of animal. If you accept evolutionary theory (and if one claims to appreciate natural evidence, one should) this would strongly indicate that there was no specific "plan" for every species.

Or, I suppose one could technically say that God planned everything...to look exactly the same as if evolution without a specific plan occurred. This, of course, is the mental gymnastics I referred to earlier.

Interesting point. Here's another mental gymnastic: If god's existance was true he would have a 'natural' way of doing things, right?

To be honest, there is an awful lot of rationalizing things according to one's view of the world, in this thread.

And if I'm allowed a little more leaway, I'd venture to say, that there 'appears' to be an air of certainty in people's statements, which doesn't fit my very own definition of 'rational' thinking.

 

[Vyer]

Don't know if it's been discussed, but what do you guys think of the whole thing with Richard Cizik and the National Association of Evangelicals? I started listening to the Fresh Air podcast and they had a return interview with him after his last one got him outed.

He talked about his new organization, trying to 'update' the views of evangelicals, including his acceptance of Civil Unions (which is what got him fired) and supporting programs such as raising awareness of contraceptives in order to curb abortions.

Here's Fresh Air's article about it from their website:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128776382

Any thoughts?

 

[soul creator]

Interesting point. Here's another mental gymnastic: If god's existance was true he would have a 'natural' way of doing things, right?

To be honest, there is an awful lot of rationalizing things according to one's view of the world, in this thread.

And if I'm allowed a little more leaway, I'd venture to say, that there 'appears' to be an air of certainty in people's statements, which doesn't fit my very own definition of 'rational' thinking.

I'm...not quite sure I follow. Though as with most god discussions, I would be curious as to how "god" is defined in this context.

And out of curiosity, are you equating the "certainty" that someone doesn't think a personal god created the universe, with the "certainty" of someone who believes one did?

 

[Ashes]

I'm...not quite sure I follow. Though as with most god discussions, I would be curious as to how "god" is defined in this context.

And out of curiosity, are you equating the "certainty" that someone doesn't think a personal god created the universe, with the "certainty" of someone who believes one did?

I actually don't know which one. Does it matter?

As regards 'certainty' it wasn't aimed at that post. More a general feeling on my part as regards the thread. ;p Yes, I rely and trust my feelings and intuition to drive my train of thought to a degree.

 

[jdogmoney]

Any thoughts?

Dude seems to get it, so to speak.

Weird that an evangelical would be so open-minded and...well...Christian.

 

[soul creator]

I actually don't know which one. Does it matter?

Very much so. I think all too often the word "god" is just thrown out there without any actual meaningful definition of what we're supposed to actually be talking about. So two different people end up talking past each other the entire time, mostly because they're envisioning two wildly different "gods". Which doesn't make for a very helpful discussion

 

[Tears For Fears]

See if Christian GAF gets this, I always say this to piss my religious friends off. " Wish me a cheesecake into existence." If you cannot, that's proof enough. Bible defenders are right up there with the people who think we evolved from Atlantian race, or ' Star People made us:lol .

 

[Ashes]

Very much so. I think all too often the word "god" is just thrown out there without any actual meaningful definition of what we're supposed to actually be talking about. So two different people end up talking past each other the entire time, mostly because they're envisioning two wildly different "gods". Which doesn't make for a very helpful discussion

I see.

 

[Metaphoreus]

See if Christian GAF gets this, I always say this to piss my religious friends off. " Wish me a cheesecake into existence." If you cannot, that's proof enough. Bible defenders are right up there with the people who think we evolved from Atlantian race, or ' Star People made us:lol .

Let me see if I "get this:"

(1) If God exists, then religious people can wish cheesecake into existence.
(2) Religious people cannot wish cheesecake into existence.
(3) Therefore, God does not exist.

I guess you're going to have to point me to the verse that says religious people can wish cheesecake into existence. Now let me try a similar proof for God's existence.

(1) If I ate a bagel for breakfast this morning, then God exists.
(2) I ate a bagel for breakfast this morning.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Now what?

 

[Ashes]

He was just trying to be clever with his words. Even so, what I got was: him saying that you couldn't wish god into existance, and then he was being very smug, though condescending would perhaps be a better choice of a word.
No real need to disect every little thing ever. ;p

 

[Metaphoreus]

No real need to disect every little thing ever. ;p

No, you're right. I just get annoyed when a person pops in just to post how you must be retarded to believe in God (or be a Christian, depending on how specific the charge is). So when someone says that, or something similar to that, I want to dissect the statement to demonstrate (1) how illogical it is (as in this case) or (2) that the statement must be supported by more than merely making it, and (3) that the anti-theists (in the sense that they are taking the opposing side in the argument to the theists) do not have a monopoly on logic. I think these discussions would save a lot of time--and avoid a lot of animosity--if they didn't start out with one side (typically the anti-theists) claiming that the other side can't think rationally.

 

[gerg]

I think these discussions would save a lot of time--and avoid a lot of animosity--if they didn't start out with one side (typically the anti-theists) claiming that the other side can't think rationally.

Perhaps. But stating that those who believe in God can't behave rationally regarding all types of judgement (be it moral or ontological) is not the same as believing that there's no rational justification for God's existence. This does not also presume that everyone who believes in God must be "retarded", either.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Perhaps. But stating that those who believe in God can't behave rationally regarding all types of judgement (be it moral or ontological) is not the same as believing that there's no rational justification for God's existence. This does not also presume that everyone who believes in God must be "retarded", either.

Certainly. But something does not have to be true to be rational. Plenty of perfectly rational people hold contradictory views on any number of subjects; one of those views may be correct, and the other may be incorrect--but both views can be rational. Rejecting the evidence supporting an argument does not establish the argument's irrationality. I believe one way, and you believe another way; I don't have to say that your belief is irrational to believe that it is incorrect, nor do I do so. Why shouldn't theists be extended the same courtesy?

Please don't misunderstand and think I was making a blanket condemnation. It was directed against a particular type of poster, not all those who take the anti-theist side in a discussion.

 

[gerg]

Certainly. But something does not have to be true to be rational. Plenty of perfectly rational people hold contradictory views on any number of subjects; one of those views may be correct, and the other may be incorrect--but both views can be rational. Rejecting the evidence supporting an argument does not establish the argument's irrationality. I believe one way, and you believe another way; I don't have to say that your belief is irrational to believe that it is incorrect, nor do I do so. Why shouldn't theists be extended the same courtesy?

Because, philosophical speaking, it's incorrect because it's illogical. I guess you could try and hold a relativist position on the matter, but on that viewpoint there isn't even an objective right or wrong to begin with.

With this statement, specifically, for example:

Plenty of perfectly rational people hold contradictory views on any number of subjects; one of those views may be correct, and the other may be incorrect--but both views can be rational.

I would deny that both of those views could be logical.

Irrational is, of course, a very strong word. I mean it less in the sense of being without reasoning in its entirety (for that would be "arational") and more in the sense of using incorrect reasoning. (I presume the semantic difference is that one emphasises the lack of logic whereas the other emphasises being overridden with emotion. They are, essentially, two sides of the same coin.) In any case, from now on I should prefer the word "illogical".

Edit: So, ultimately, escaping from the semantics for the moment, I would still deny that there's a logical reason to believe in God.

 

[Ashes]

I don't get why you get to define rationality, though.
edit: late, I am.
Oh and am I the only one who thinks clarity is being lost with so many abstract notions being tussled in a single go? And on these issues where clarity is so very important.
It's more me then you gerg, I'll admit that much my self.
edit: logic and god? belief in god=illogical?

 

[gerg]

Oh and am I the only one who thinks clarity is being lost with so many abstract notions being tussled in a single go? And on these issues where clarity is so very important.

Welcome to the wonderful world of philosophy!

Heck, philosophy pretty much is the definition of abstract concepts.

 

[Ashes]

Welcome to the wonderful world of philosophy!

Heck, philosophy pretty much is the definition of abstract concepts.

I have slight problems with abstract notions. Say, visually, and conceptually, I can draw a line where two sides of a plane are running according to differing 'time constuctions', like in space perhaps, but I can't bend my mind towards grasping it like a real entity. Something tells me that its logical and must be, as it is mathematically proven, and scientifically shown, yet I'm not 100% fully capable of comprehending it. I just have to accept it.

 

[jdogmoney]

edit: logic and god? belief in god=illogical?

Sorta by definition. Doesn't mean that belief is bad or wrong, of course, but it tends to have nothing to do with logic, by definition.

 

[Ashes]

Sorta by definition. Doesn't mean that belief is bad or wrong, of course, but it tends to have nothing to do with logic, by definition.

I don't understand how belief by it self is illogical by definition.

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean exactly but what if I believed with good authority (perhaps whole heartedly is a better word) that a horse, who was odds on favourite, was going to win a race. How would that belief be illogical?

edit: Thinking about it more, is my definition of belief different to yours and/or are you talking about some kind of blind faith?

 

[jdogmoney]

I don't understand how belief by it self is illogical by definition.

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean exactly but what if I believed with good authority (perhaps whole heartedly is a better word) that a horse, who was odds on favourite, was going to win a race. How would that belief be illogical?

edit: Thinking about it more, is my definition of belief different to yours and/or are you talking about some kind of blind faith?

I think I draw a greater distinction between "beliefs" and "ideas". I don't believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but I have a pretty good idea that that's going to be the case.

Maybe it's a sliding scale? :lol I dunno, I need to sleep more before my reasoning is clever again.

 

[RobertM]

I think I draw a greater distinction between "beliefs" and "ideas". I don't believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow, but I have a pretty good idea that that's going to be the case.

Maybe it's a sliding scale? :lol I dunno, I need to sleep more before my reasoning is clever again.

You're discussing a posteriori knowledge which deals less with belief but rather perception or empirical evidence.

 

[Ashes]

did you watch jon Stewart take the issue head on?

 

[gerg]

Sorta by definition. Doesn't mean that belief is bad or wrong, of course, but it tends to have nothing to do with logic, by definition.

All belief is is the proposition that x is true. It's neither inherently irrational or rational.

Belief =/= faith.

Edit: Actually, that's not even true. Not all beliefs are propositional; some are attitudinal. Ignore please.

EditEdit: In any case, I think you are conflating "belief" with "faith". For example, in order to know something we must believe that it is true; if all acts of belief are illogical, then all claims to knowledge are subsequently illogical.

I'm tempted to revert back to what Hume says, but having remembered that according to him all beliefs are formed naturalistically - our belief-forming mechanism are arational - I'm not sure he really wants to support your opinion either. According to Hume we cannot help but believe certain propositions (such as the Sun will rise tomorrow) despite the fact that there is no logical reason to do so; all these beliefs are are particularly vivacious ideas.

Edit3: So, on the one hand, there's a chance that we're agreeing with each other, but according to Hume ideas are formed naturalistically as well, so a distinction between "beliefs" and "ideas" in terms of rationality or logic doesn't stand. Not that I agree with Hume, but I'm trying to work out what you're proposing...