What's wrong with faith?

[raindog]

@The_Hamster_King

The non-existence of God is as much an objective fact as the existence of trees. In both cases it’s the hypothesis the best explains the evidence at hand, although both assertions are open to falsification if new evidence presents itself.

If you asked me to judge, I’d personally be *less *surprised to discover that *trees *are an illusion. Faking trees wouldn’t require violating fundamental laws of the universe.

Man, I love these posts!

I used to get posters to chase their virtual tail pressing them to make good on comments like, (and I quote) “The non-existence of God is as much an objective fact as the existence of trees.”

Alas, I have less time and it’s not as much fun.

But you did say something I found interesting. If this Big Cheese God exists, he made those pesky “fundamental laws of the universe”!

It’s comical to suggest that----should this God exist-----he’d be bound up by the physical laws that govern the temporal world; that a supernatural God would be subject to his own laws.

By way of example, I had a Catholic friend who had been convinced that Noah’s Ark was a myth, because a mechanical engineer told him the boat wouldn’t have withstood the hull pressure. Without taking a position either way I asked him, Do you believe in God? (yes) Do you believe that God has the power to govern the physical world, or alter in any way he sees fit? (yes) More importantly, do you believe that this God was actually the architect—the creator----of these laws? (yes) So…do you believe that God—if he wanted to----could make it rain? (yes)

And he couldn’t build a seaworthy vessel?

[raindog]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

Are you suggesting that anything I might make up about an after-life should be taken seriously? I’d quite like a tub full of nubile girls covered in double cream.

I dunno. This much I do know: it would be a subjective belief system.

[raindog]

@The_Hamster_King

Because we don’t have a word for people who don’t believe in flargs. (Which are ill-defined non-material entities that are necessary for the existence of the universe … but which are not gods.)

If no positive assertions were made about the god concept then it would be ontologically equivalent to the flarg concept, i.e. it wouldn’t exist at all. So there would be no need to argue against it.

What’s your position on flargs, by the way? Yea or nay?

Missed the edit window the second time, huh? I hate it when that happens.

Positive assertions have been made about [a] God, right? So I’m struggling to find some relevance here…

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@raindog

I dunno. This much I do know: it would be a subjective belief system.

Of course it is. The question is: why take it any more - or less - seriously than any other fantasy?

[iamnotbatman]

@radorth

On to the personal insults already?

Well no you haven’t read all of them because my Einstein quote is not only accurate, it is just a small piece of the positive things he said about Jesus personally. I seriously doubt you know what Jefferson or Adams said about Jesus himself either. But if you do know, please let the readers know what they did say. That way I won’t have to do have to do it for you.

Perhaps we should end this out of respect for the thread starter or begin a new thread.

Yes. Your misrepresentation of historical fact is vile. I am not starting a new thread, because that might give your blatant contradiction of fact legitimacy in this thread. First of all, unless you purport Einstein to be a liar, his statements (some of which I pointed to) later in his life prove you wrong full stop. Second of all, you have not presented a quote. You have alluded to one in an article, but which one I do not know. Third of all, the fact that he said positive things about Jesus is completely irrelevant to the question of his religious views. I have good things to say about Jesus, and I am an atheist.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@raindog

It’s comical to suggest that----should this God exist-----he’d be bound up by the physical laws that govern the temporal world; that a supernatural God would be subject to his own laws.

No, it isn’t. It’s pretty reasonable; assume, simply, that he elects to be bound by those laws, by choice. That he is as capable of breaking them as you or I are capable of breaking criminal laws, but chooses not to do so as we choose not to do so.

As you yourself point out later on in your post - such a god’s powers are not bound solely by ability, but personality. Otherwise, by the very same logic, it would be comical to suggest that - should this God exist - he’d be bound up by the moral laws that govern the temporal world. Which would be unfortunate.

Oh, and as far as this goes;

Isn’t that the case? Isn’t science **silent **on the existence of a super natural God?

No. Science speaks volumes to the existence of many kinds of supernatural gods. Specifically, those gods so defined as to require the nonexistence of non-supernatural means or existences which have been found to exist, or that state that the only possible means for some aspect of the universe to exist is supernatural for which non-supernatural explanations have been found.

[Grumman]

@raindog

Why?

Science is silent on the matter.

Science is not silent, you’re just running around with your hands cupped over your ears.

[raindog]

@Revenant_Threshold

No, it isn’t. It’s pretty reasonable; assume, simply, that he elects to be bound by those laws, by choice. That he is as capable of breaking them as you or I are capable of breaking criminal laws, but chooses not to do so as we choose not to do so.

As you yourself point out later on in your post - such a god’s powers are not bound solely by ability, but personality. Otherwise, by the very same logic, it would be comical to suggest that - should this God exist - he’d be bound up by the moral laws that govern the temporal world. Which would be unfortunate.

Of course, we’re no longer talking about this God’s existence, but rather his utility. (as it relates to the human experience) It is enough to say it is irrational to think that this God would be constrained by his own creation.

Whether he figures he’s subject to them, and under what circumstances he feels the moral right to bend/break them is another thread altogether, right?

In any event, the point stands. It is not reasonable that a supernatural God would be involuntarily subject to the same laws that he created for the natural world, and that he would have the same limitations of his creation, humans.

Oh, and as far as this goes; No. Science speaks volumes to the existence of many kinds of supernatural gods. Specifically, those gods so defined as to require the nonexistence of non-supernatural means or existences which have been found to exist, or that state that the only possible means for some aspect of the universe to exist is supernatural for which non-supernatural explanations have been found.

Incorrect. Even if some explanations-----in fact all explanations----that had previously been ascribed to a supernatural God had been revealed as having a natural cause/effect it still wouldn’t establish the non-existence of [a] God.

In other words, science, by virtue of being restricted to the human experience and the natural world, can only reveal/discover/expose the counterfeits ------and specifically those counterfeits that can be revealed via human observation.

Exposing a thousand counterfeits can never establish that the real article doesn’t exist.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@iamnotbatman

Your post is incoherent, but I’ll assume you are trying to say that you are not stupid because you haven’t killed anyone (???) and that stupidity wouldn’t make you happier (?).

My point was theoretical. Supposing stupidity made you happier, would there be anything wrong with being stupid? The answer is obvious.

Ok, you did mention this in response to my statement that one benefit from faith for me is that it assisted me doing a job that had peoples lives at stake. In that case, stupidity would not have helped since it would be too dangerous and the results of that danger would not make me happier. I didn’t realize it was a theoretical since it pretty well fit as a specific response. Sorry that following the thread made me incoherent. Hope this clears that up.

I don’t think though I’ve been unclear in my non support of dangerous beliefs so I see no need to mention it again.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@Czarcasm

For the purposes of the this thread, the definition is “blind faith”, which is pretty much all religion has.

You asked me the question three times to say this?

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@Cammacdon

Faith is the crutch of the ignorant. It interferes with real learning. It holds us back as a species. Faith holds back and even rallies against scientific research that could cure horrible diseases and foster a better life for everybody. It has historically ignored, and in most cases even supported murder,bigotry,oppression,slavery,child abuse(sexual and otherwise),torture, and genocide.

But most of all, It is cowardly. The only reason it has any foothold in our time is because people fear death and will go along with any ridiculous myth rather than grow up and face the fact that one day, you will simply cease to exist.

The first paragraph is absurd. I don’t support any of those bad things or rally against the good ones.

The second paragraph is spot on which to me is a good thing. If we’re only ending up worm meat anyway and we can have a free, non painful placebo that can help alleviate that seems a good thing.

And yeah, it holds us back from learning? So what? Every human being doesn’t have to learn everything. Most really can’t. I have no idea how to put together a gas combustion engine. I’d prefer to believe it’s the engine gremlins that make it work ( just an example but I am useless on cars ). I’m glad that there are those working for and dedicated for knowing this stuff and I rationally realize that there are no engine gremlins. It’s more fun to believe the magic to me. I don’t think it makes me ignorant to have fun this way. I certainly wouldn’t start a religion over it.

I think I need to put a signature line in every post saying I’m not defending harmful beliefs at all but non harmful ones. But it appears you’re saying, faith itself is so harmful that you can’t even let a little go unchecked because it’ll lead to sex abuse, torture, dogs and cat’s living in sin etc.

And your side is the rational side. I’m glad the small minority of you guys have kept the world together with almost everyone working against the furthering of the species. Seriously, thanks for that.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

I’m seriously interested in how you’d counter my post at #65. I know I may be forcing you to defend a stance you don’t personally take, but I still would like a rebuttal.

Sorry, didn’t see a question there. I agree with you. The philosophy of the Abrahamic God can cause horrible pain and misery and when it’s starting to do that, it needs to be fought and countered. The elderly woman I used to work with in SC who was one of the most gentle, caring and surprisingly open minded people I’d ever met as a danger? Not so much.

Maybe that’s it? I’d prefer to think I’m capable of judging someone on their own merits as opposed to knee jerking and considering her dangerous. Knee jerking is faster, easier and I guess somehow more rational. Funny though. It’s the knee jerking that causes most faiths to go off rail. I mean, every Muslim is an evil terrorist right? They all must be confronted since they’re double dangerous. They’re foreign AND they have faith. That will not do.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

Sorry, didn’t see a question there. I agree with you. The philosophy of the Abrahamic God can cause horrible pain and misery and when it’s starting to do that, it needs to be fought and countered. The elderly woman I used to work with in SC who was one of the most gentle, caring and surprisingly open minded people I’d ever met as a danger? Not so much.

Maybe that’s it? I’d prefer to think I’m capable of judging someone on their own merits as opposed to knee jerking and considering her dangerous.

So long as you’re not going on faith.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@raindog

Add “default position” to the long list of surrogates for “I don’t believe…”

That’s the best choice. I may have faiths that I choose to believe in but the default position is that they’re wrong. I’ve been saying that. I’ve been asking so what and I"m getting answers to that.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

So long as you’re not going on faith.

Not sure if I got your meaning but judging anyone as anything is just going on faith. Trust me ( didn’t mean this as a groaner ).

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Gyrate

Evangelicals of any sort tend to be self-righteous jerks who think that they own the truth, whether they’re atheists, Christians, ex-smokers, Apple users or whatever.

What about the Evangelical gravity-believers? Or the Evangelical 2+2=4-believers? I mean, it would be pretty jerkish if someone went around constantly harping that:

“2+2=4! It just does! There is absolutely no evidence that 2+2 does not equal 4, so you are acting irrationally if you believe in that delusion!!!”

Luckily, no one really feels any need to admonish others for their irrational arithmetic beliefs since there aren’t many people structuring their entire lives around, or influencing public policy and making life-changing decisions for themselves and others on the contention that 2+2 does not equal 4.

Whew! Jerkishness averted.

However, when you’re fighting real-life widespread ignorance, things get just a little more serious. People hold rather dearly to their irrational beliefs and won’t let go without a fight.

It would be nice if it didn’t matter what delusions people harbor, but in the case of religion, it can be a matter of life or death (see: women, stoned to death-- c.8000 B.C.E - 2010 A.D.)

Wait a minute though–turn that frown upside down!! These fairy-tale beliefs sometimes only result in the loss of basic civil rights (see: “No way thems fuckin faggots gettin married in God’s country!”) Yay. Spread the Good News.

I don’t consider it “jerkish” and “Evangelical” to speak out against the baseless and childish fantasies that lead to such primitive hatred, fear, and terror. Though I can see how it might come across as rude to those who support–implicitly or explicitly–the evils borne of mass delusions.

So please don’t try to equate that with the dreadful bores who endlessly badger others about one’s choice of computer, football team, decision to smoke, or one’s refusal to subscribe to the “self-righteous jerk’s” supernatural JesusNuttery (or whatever flavor of devious bat-shittery the nutburger is pushing).

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Disgruntled_Penguin

Not sure if I got your meaning but judging anyone as anything is just going on faith.

You said you’re “capable of judging someone on their own merits”. I didn’t realize you were “just going on faith” when doing so.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@The_Hamster_King

The non-existence of God is as much an objective fact as the existence of trees. In both cases it’s the hypothesis the best explains the evidence at hand, although both assertions are open to falsification if new evidence presents itself.

If you asked me to judge, I’d personally be *less *surprised to discover that *trees *are an illusion. Faking trees wouldn’t require violating fundamental laws of the universe. I’ve even see some pretty convincing examples of fake trees. I’ve never see anything remotely God-like ever.

Even if you have touched the tree?

I’m assuming illusion as if it doesn’t exist, not that it doesn’t fit the definition of a tree. If it’s the latter, then disregard. That’s just semantics.

If it’s the former then please tell me the fundamental laws of the universe because I’m acting on the fundamental laws of this planet which can only observe a small part of the universe and has no basis for assuming these laws are the end all be all and it’s beginning to show that we’re not positive about all we think we are.

I mean, we now know that arsenic based life forms exist so I guess that universal law wasn’t quite so universal was it? It seems the more we learn the less we realize we should know and the more we should learn not just assume we have all the answers. We don’t know Jack. We haven’t even explored our solar system yet.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

You said you’re “capable of judging someone on their own merits”. I didn’t realize you were “just going on faith” when doing so.

I realize I have the ability to lie and to assume positions and do actions that I don’t agree with. I’m assuming others do to so yeah, when I judge them there’s a whole lot of faith going on.

[Disgruntled_Penguin]

@raindog

Man, I love these posts!

I used to get posters to chase their virtual tail pressing them to make good on comments like, (and I quote) “The non-existence of God is as much an objective fact as the existence of trees.”

Alas, I have less time and it’s not as much fun.

But you did say something I found interesting. If this Big Cheese God exists, he made those pesky “fundamental laws of the universe”!

It’s comical to suggest that----should this God exist-----he’d be bound up by the physical laws that govern the temporal world; that a supernatural God would be subject to his own laws.

By way of example, I had a Catholic friend who had been convinced that Noah’s Ark was a myth, because a mechanical engineer told him the boat wouldn’t have withstood the hull pressure. Without taking a position either way I asked him, Do you believe in God? (yes) Do you believe that God has the power to govern the physical world, or alter in any way he sees fit? (yes) More importantly, do you believe that this God was actually the architect—the creator----of these laws? (yes) So…do you believe that God—if he wanted to----could make it rain? (yes)

And he couldn’t build a seaworthy vessel?

I don’t see why that God would do that though. Whats the point to creating laws that it’s creations can explore, learn about, progress through if you’re just going to screw with him and break the laws of the universe when it suits him he’s inhabiting causing confusion? Somehow I think he could have the same effect working within the system.

Maybe he’s lazy?