Their justification is they have “other ways of knowing”, which they cannot show you; and yet they expect you to, at the very least, show full deference to this state of affairs, as if its mere existence justifies it. This works as far as it goes, so long as one is willing to posit facts have no primacy over feelings (unless the theists want them to), and also that everyone agrees not to perturb others in any way that might offend their sensibilities. I guess this amounts to the wonderfully concilliatory and ecumenical notion that everyone could be right, and no one is necessarily wrong. That’s marvelously generous, but logically vacuous. The ways of knowing, beyond often being functionally incompatible, can lead to outright positions of mutual exlusion. Yet neither one or the other must be right? I suppose if you abandon logic, or deny its primacy, dark is light, that 2 + 2 is 5, that squares are round, as long as you want any of it to be, or simply assert your experience of these contradictions. Whether the evidence denies this must be acknowledge, as long as those reliant on evidence concede this fact is nothing special or exceptionally actionable. They call us “materialists” and claim we have no cause to assert evidence over myth, external fact over internal “knowing”. It’s an impossible arrangement. Dissatisfaction on the part of someone is inevitable, as unfortunate as that is. Given that we have the gall to recognize the primacy of fact and logic, like as not the disappointed will be us.
I do not grok in fullness.
I’ve not seen theism defended on rational grounds, or conceded.
Then again, if someone is convinced that Magic Invisible Pixies control the world and even change all the evidence of their presence like some Trickster Gods… well…
I may be willing to come over there if you have vanilla fudge with nuts? And sweatshirts. Ya gotta have sweatshirts. 
No, I think you did fine on your quoting and it was I that flubbed up my understanding. I hope I see now where our differences lie (maybe) … on the surface, what with QtM being a doctor and you only doctoring computers (please tell me that’s what an IT person does), it would seem that one would easily go with his advice. However, if you’ve already tried that, perhaps repeatedly, and it hadn’t worked or gave bad results, you may indeed listen to someone who isn’t in the field. That person could easily point you in the right direction to look, offer what they found worked that you’d never heard of and then could at least suggest to your doctor/whatever, tell you side effects to stuff you hadn’t been told or had overlooked and a vast variety of things. Plus, there are cases (even if it’s small) where the one(s) without the knowledge, end up saving the day. Like the parents in Lorenzo’s Oil. Can you imagine the disastrous results for their son (but even more so for the many that it’s saved since then and in a way that those children don’t have to go through what he did) if they’d listened to professional opinion rather than staying after what they’d observed and researched for themselves? I wonder what happened to all those who disputed and ridiculed them for their beliefs? That is why, IMHO, that respect for other people is important. You never know what you might miss.
For example, if you and I weren’t being kind and thoughtful to one another, we wouldn’t be discussing the “dark side” and how fun it might be to hang out there. 
I’m always open to views that are not my own.
I agree whole-heartedly. With the passing of time, belief in a supernatural superior being may go the same way as the earth being flat or the sun orbiting around it. Or, perhaps they’ll find evidence that something higher up does pull the strings down below. I’d love to read up on something like that. I don’t know if it would ever be consider conclusive (I mean, we’re still fighting hard to have evolution considered a fact) in our lifetime, but it’s definitely worth striving for.
And I for one, appreciate that. It’s really hard for most folks to continue to convey their message in the face of what they feel is hostility. Now, the one that’s arguing with them may claim all kinds of things about what they’re doing (I think I’ve used this before, but at this point, who the hell knows? But claiming that “gay” isn’t used as a pejorative because the two dictionary definitions(that I know of – I’m sure there’s other, but not the one above), claim that it describes either happy or someone of homosexual orientation. However, I doubt seriously that when it’s said in the same way that “Fag!” is shouted, I don’t believe they’re commenting on that person’s state of mind or their sexual preference (obviously, if they are straight). But that’s just one example and I’m sure anyone else can come up with something better. I hope that makes sense.
Best to you too.
I also bet that your going to keep baiting me with fudge, aren’t ya? 
Faithfool: Nice! Did anybody tell you lately that you’re a bright spot in a gloomy world? 'Cause you are!
Loopy: I regret having let your terminology and seeming superciliousness regarding my views tempt me into anger. How I should have answered is:
As for “faith,” you may possibly be interested in my definition, which is not concerned with degree of intellectual certitude. If I believe in someone, I put my trust in them. I believe in Liberal; he’s a man who has gone way out of his way to do good things for me. I believe in gobear; he’s reached across a chasm to be a friend to me. I believe in RTFirefly; with his wife, he’s opened his home and his heart to me, and helped me through a lot. I believe in Siege; she’s been the sister I never had, my twin in spirit through more stuff than you’d believe.
I believe in Jesus, and in the loving Father whom He knew and loved, in just about the same way. I know them and trust them, because of their love shown to me, because of the gracious gifts they’ve poured out on me – and I’m not talking churchy stuff here, but the fulfilling of my emotional needs when I didn’t even realize those needs existed. I’m childless according to the law and genetics, but I have a son who loves me, the direct result of my doing what God told me in that theophany, and which I had no clue that my son even existed, much less was destined to enter into that intimate relationship with me, when I answered His call, and started the ball rolling that inexorably led to us being in that relationship.
I cannot prove to you, by cold crystal logic, that Siege or gobear is One of the Nice Ones (TM Spider Robinson) – but I’d stake my life on it.
And so’s Jesus – and I have staked my life on that.
That was my interpretation as well.
Here’s a question that I’ve asked before: everyone’s talking about this subject in terms of Christianity alone. But why stop with Christianity, or even religion? Why wouldn’t you (meaning those who are arguing against faith as something a reasonable person would have) condemn and seek to eliminate everything and anything even remotely spiritual in nature (every single religion, some yoga, prayer, etc.)? Or would you?
(Advance apologies if I missed something in the tons of previous pages.)
I have a lingering belief that some of the fundemental teachings of buddhism are true, and that a state of enlightened existence (if not nirvana) can be attained. (if that counts as an answer to your question)
However I do not argue against faith as something a reasonable person would have, as faith (in general) is something most humans share. Such as faith in one’s own recovery from illness.
I have a lingering belief that some of the fundemental teachings of buddhism are true, and that a state of enlightened existence (if not nirvana) can be attained. (if that counts as an answer to your question)
However I do not argue against faith as something a reasonable person would have, as faith (in general) is something most humans share. Such as faith in one’s own recovery from illness.
I suppose I should not leap to the conclusion that your statement connotes I am wanting for, or desire, a friendly and self-sacrificing Christian to deride. I will put off being irritated in turn if that is not your assumption.
As for the rest, personal convictions are touching (and I mean that sincerely), but witnessing is not posing an argument; but you clearly do not intend to make one, so I guess I must let the matter lie.
Regards.
*kriiiiiik kriiiiiik kriiiiiik
bu-uuurp
bu-uuuuuuurp
kriiiiiik kriiiiiik
bu-uuurp
bu-uuuuuuurp
whoo-wo-hooo
kriiiiiik kriiiiiik kriiiiiik*
You didn’t quite get it. Theism is the elephant, the homophobia and attempt to restrict people’s rights that comes from a literal theism is the shit. Those theists who say they don’t accept the shit, and won’t make anyone suffer - like Poly and you, I am sure, are the good guys. I’ve read the Bible, and it says lots of nasty things. I am quite glad you don’t buy them. But while I get why you morally don’t accept them, I have a hard time understanding why you logically don’t accept them. The Bible says A, and you say either some shmuck inserted A in the Bible, and it doesn’t count, or the Bible really means B, or that A doesn’t count anymore. It’s another case where many theists are more moral than their god. It is harder to reject the word of a deity because of your innate morality than to reject it from first principles, so this is something I respect.
Is your faith based on belief, or on what you see as facts? Do you think a non-believer just doesn’t share your belief, or is looking obvious data in the face and refusing to accept it? One who says that they believe in the absence of data is not delusional. One who claims there is data, and refuses to show it or rejects contradictory evidence, is. Do you think creationists are delusional - at least the ones who really buy the stuff?
I understand that. But would you stake my life on it?
Would you force me to accept Jesus on pain of death, for the good of my soul? Would you force my daughter to not have an abortion because Jesus told you so? I know you wouldn’t, it’s purely rhetorical. But Christians have. Those who believe as a matter of fact rather than a matter of faith do this stuff, and that is where I draw the distinction.
All religion is not delusion, no, no, no. But some religous people are delusional. And those that are either claim facts that go against reality. I don’t even care about that, but I do care about those who act in ways that adversely affect other people because they are sure there beliefs have been proven.
Good Lord, no! And yeah, I’m pretty well aware of the offenses committed by man against man in Jesus’s name – and I hope you’ve noticed me trying to fight on the side of humanity in them. Here is what I – well, not expect, but hope, that people will do.
I take your point about faith being a (more-or-less) benign belief and yeah, I think it has to really impact your life before the psychs start coming after you with the straightjacket.
OTOH, I don’t really consider strong faith to be benign. We currently have another thread in the Pit with George Bush telling people that you can’t be President without “A relationship with the Lord.” Obviously, Bush’s little pronouncement has no force in law but that is a common attitude among the religious.
Lest you think I am just slamming Christianity, the others are as bad or worse. Islam runs amok and leads to Taliban-style persecution of women, Judaism has its own problems. I don’t know if you’ve read some of the Bible but there are some really gruesome incidents like smashing the heads of babys on rocks, an act that was praised by God, the same one I assume you are worshipping. The virgin girls among those tribes were raped and drug off to be concubines. The Hindu religion kills the Moslems whenever a mob can be whipped into a religious frenzy and the Moslems return the favor with interest.
The belief in a higher power either advocates killing or can be twisted into advocating such. It has done so all through history and is doing it today, right now. Religion is far from benign. The place I’m living right now is a sort of modified theocracy. There are religious police that patrol the streets, harrasing women for the sin of showing their faces or ankles, wearing cloppy shoes, fingernail polish, and other mortal sins. The religious police have the power of arrest and detention and offenses such as blasphemy are punishable by death. Please don’t assume that “well, that is just those crazy Moslems”, Christianity has done similar things on many occasions.
We regularly have suicide bombers claiming divine authority for their acts as they let go of the dead-man switch and kill a few more “infidels,” ie people like me. I have a deeply-rooted fear of religious people. Once God blesses something then all bets are off and there is no atrocity that cannot be comitted by “the faithful” that is not blessed by the Lord.
All the best
Testy
Testy: This is actually an argument that I had with a recent ex, so it’s still somewhat fresh in my mind.
It strikes me that once you let faith, blind faith, through the door, that you have to let it all through. You can’t pick and choose which Invisible Friend someone decides to worship.
And if someone divines via faith that their particular Invisible Friend wants them to kill some folks, why, that’s as logically sound as someone else deciding that their Invisible Friend wants them to spread sunshine and gumdrops across the land.
Yes, you can say “only faiths which are non-violent are okay”, but then you’re applying reason and logic to faith, which you can’t do. Oil and water, n’ all that.
Once you have left the path of reason there is no system of discerning ‘good faith’ from ‘bad faith’. Whatever someone chooses to place blind faith in is of equal merit without proof.
That’s not true. The exact reference fails me, but I know there’s a verse in the bible, says something like it’s good to question all things, even the existence of God.
Now, I’ve not read the Christian Bible, but I hear Christians saying all the time that if you don’t believe in Jesus you go to hell.
To me that implies that questioning is, just a tad, discouraged.
Or at least “question all you want, as long as you come to the conclusions we want you to come to.”
It’s never really sat right with me about non-Christians going to hell. Maybe it’s because there have been way too many people who claimed to be Christian that I don’t think deserve to go to heaven (Adolf Hitler, anyone?)…which brings up another interesting topic, but I suppose if I want to discuss it I’ll start a new thread…
Though, there are some people, who do claim to be Christians, who think God is all-forgiving. Personally, I take the fifth. After all, I’m not God, and it’s hard for me to imagine how He thinks.
Three men die and go to heaven, a Muslim, a Jew, and an atheist.
Muslim walks up to St. Peter.
St. Peter looks him over and says “Head on it, straight down the hallway, second door on your left. But whatever you do, don’t go into the first door on your left.”
Jew walks up to St. Peter.
St. Peter looks him over and says “Head on it, straight down the hallway, second door on your left. But whatever you do, don’t go into the first door on your left.”
Atheist walks up to St. Peter but before Peter can say anything, that atheist says “Hey, what’s behind the first door?”
St. Peter answers: “Oh, that. Those are the Christians. They like to think they’re the only ones here.”
I imagine if he went to heaven, he probably wouldn’t be an atheist anymore.
I wonder, if God is forgiving enough to allow atheists into heaven, is there anyone He wouldn’t allow (murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc.)?