Faith, Reason and Truth

[Springheel]

think it's ironic how after this thread started my 'reputation' dropped 4 points.

 

Yes, I really wish we could disable these silly "reputation" buttons. I'm not sure what purpose they're supposed to serve, but they certainly should NOT be used to knock someone who is participating in a valid discussion, even if you disagree with their views.

 

No one deserves a bad reputation for stating their opinions honestly.

 

Please, everyone, stop using them.

[Springheel]

The Agnostic looks at the world and whether by intuition or rational thinking, recognizes that we need help in solving these problems, and there must be a much higher power or being

 

Nicely written, but what kind of "rational thinking" would help you arrive at the conclusion that there "must be" a higher power?

 

and there must be a much higher power or being in existence to orchestrate meaning and purpose for everything. Then, the Christian goes the next step from that by saying that he/she believes that the higher being does not remain silent, but wants to reveal himself—in the Bible.

 

Going from Agnostic to Christian is not really "the next step". Why choose Christianity? If you feel that you need some "higher power" to give your life meaning, why not choose Judaism? Or Islam? Or Hinduism? Or any of the other thousands of religions that have been created by man throughout time?

 

wants to reveal himself—in the Bible.

 

If the creator of the universe wanted to reveal himself, he could have done a lot better than the Bible. I'm still curious about your views on the Bible, however. If you don't mind, I'll quote my earlier questions to you (that likely got lost in the shuffle)

 

I believe that the bible is to be taken literally, except for the few occurrences that God inserts obvious figurative 'picture language' and such

 

The rather glaring problem I see there is how you measure "obvious figurative" language. Is the Genesis story meant to be taken literally, or is it figurative? When God sends bears to rip 42 children into pieces in 2 Kings, is that meant to be taken literally? By what measuring stick would you decide what is "infallible" and what isn't?

 

Talking like this likely won't change anyone's beliefs. But I do like these discussions

 

I generally do as well. However, I'm not entirely sure where we disagree. If you accept that rationality is the best way to develop a realistic worldview, and you're agreeing that belief in religion is irrational (without going back and scanning earlier posts, that's what I believe you said), I'm not sure we'll have even enough common ground for a debate. Our disagreement may come down to this single issue: do you care whether or not your beliefs about the world are true?

 

Another question occurred to me a few days ago and made me think of you: As someone with a good knowledge of history, how do you deal with the discrepancies surrounding the date of Jesus' birth? Luke 2:2 claims it was during the period where Quirinius was governer of Syria, and Matthew 2:1 claims it was during the reign of Herod the Great. These two periods do not actually overlap. Quirinius' famous census was a good 10 years after the end of Herod's reign.

 

Most modern historians suggest that Luke's account is mistaken. However, if you believe the Bible is infallible then you would seem unable to accept that, so how do you rationalize this apparent contradiction?

 

 

@ Midnight:

I had a sense that maybe there was an intelligent force that exists in those depths of space, and in every atom in our bodies. I realised that we might simply not be capable of detecting the kind of intelligence I had imagined, and that I had to allow for that possibility (irrespective of probability). I guess you could say I changed my belief that night, and now allow in my mind for there to be a God-like intelligence in the Universe, even one that is concerned about us and possibly even able to affect us in some way. So no, I no longer consider myself an Athiest.

 

Since when does accepting the possibility of a god mean you're not an atheist? I accept the possibility that a god or gods exist, and if I am provided with convincing evidence then I'll believe it. But until that time, I don't have that belief, which means I'm an atheist.

 

@ Nbhor1more

I agree with several of the points you made, but we disagree here:

I have to agree that we should measure what we decide to do in this world by what we can know through Science. But if we want to know what God is asking of us then the Bible is a valid reference.

 

Two big problems with that:

 

1. It presupposes a god exists in the first place. Where is the evidence of this?

 

2. It presupposes that if a god does exist, it is the Christian God, and not one of the other thousands of gods (for whom the Bible would be irrelevant) What evidence is there of this?

 

3. It presupposes that if a god exists, and it is the Christian God, then Bible is actually a valid way to know what "God is asking of us". What evidence is there of this? One would think that if the Bible was a valid way of doing this, there would be a great deal more agreement on how to interpret it, would it not?

 

@ jdude:

Spring, I love how you just go back and infer that I'm supposed to understand some subtext to what your saying.

 

Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[jdude]

That seems to be a common theme with you.

[nbohr1more]

Yes, I really wish we could disable these silly "reputation" buttons. I'm not sure what purpose they're supposed to serve, but they certainly should NOT be used to knock someone who is participating in a valid discussion, even if you disagree with their views.

 

No one deserves a bad reputation for stating their opinions honestly.

 

Please, everyone, stop using them.

 

I tried to give you a Plus Rep for that one (haven't been using them silly Rep buttons in this discussion either) but I forgot I used up all my positive Rep quota giving props to Rich_is_Bored for his Translucency Thread :laugh:

[Midnight]

Since when does accepting the possibility of a god mean you're not an atheist?

It just depends on your definition of Atheism. From Wikipedia:

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.^[20] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God".

 

There's a lot of ambiguity in the actual meaning varying from "without" or "apart from" God to an active denial of theism. It's common to find the latter definition is more prevalent (or at least this is my perception of how the religious see the meaning of the word), with 'agnostic' instead taking the place of the kind of atheism that you and I subscribe to. If you take Atheism in its implicit form, then basically what I was saying was: I used to be anti-theist, now I'm atheist.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Midnight

[SneaksieDave]

"You are" = "You're."

 

(I wouldn't normally say anything but "your" has been used instead probably a dozen times already. /QA sweep of thread!)

[nbohr1more]

Two big problems with that:

 

1. It presupposes a god exists in the first place. Where is the evidence of this?

 

2. It presupposes that if a god does exist, it is the Christian God, and not one of the other thousands of gods (for whom the Bible would be irrelevant) What evidence is there of this?

 

3. It presupposes that if a god exists, and it is the Christian God, then Bible is actually a valid way to know what "God is asking of us". What evidence is there of this? One would think that if the Bible was a valid way of doing this, there would be a great deal more agreement on how to interpret it, would it not?

 

I think these are valid concerns and concede the logic of them almost entirely but I also think that if you believe in God you might as well read as many different works of literature that reference this deity including the Bible to get an idea of what humanity has said about the matter thus far (...and perhaps God himself?).

 

Another tangent:

 

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me"

 

Implies that other Gods exist, no?

 

If we add that idea to the Islamic idea of Jinn we have an inkling of the idea that the Abrahamic faiths conceal a sort of taboo pantheon...

[Sotha]

I find this discussions still interesting here. Even the classical nazi card was played!

 

And tbh I'm sick of posting here and I think it's ironic how after this thread started my 'reputation' dropped 4 points.

I just have to comment here that your reputation was lowered by this comment

Congrats Sotha on ruining this thread by pushing your beliefs and trying to strike up a debate to show off how smart you are. Didn't even read past your first paragraph.

In this particular case I just have to agree that reputation decrease have to occur. However, later on you've done some nice contributions to this discussion which have also given you positive reputation.

 

So, keep on giving reputation increases and decreases, but not for whether you agree with opinions or not.

Aggressive, impolite, etc posts deserve negative reputation.

Good insight and well written or other 'good' posts deserve positive ones.

If in doubt do not change reputation.

 

There has been some discussion about the purpose of this thread. It would seem that the main idea is to enjoy a discussion on religious/logical topics. Also new insight may be gained from here, at least I have. I definately do not recommend stopping the discussion like Mr. Lemony Fresh suggested.

 

The idea is not to make anyone change their beliefs. We are merely discussing about them and attempting to see why others see things the way they see them.

 

If the topic seems too sensitive, try to get a broader perspective.

[Springheel]

@Midnight:

There's a lot of ambiguity in the actual meaning varying from "without" or "apart from" God to an active denial of theism. It's common to find the latter definition is more prevalent

 

Yes, you're right. It's hard for people to separate "I am without a belief in gods" from "I believe no gods exist". The difference is significant, however. The latter is a truth claim, but the first is not. Making it more difficult, a lot of atheists will actually say, "I don't believe any gods exist" as linguistic shorthand for "I see no reason to believe gods are real". People often respond with, "but you can't prove gods don't exist!" And they're right. But that's not what atheists are saying. I don't believe the Loch Ness Monster exists, but I wouldn't say I can prove that he doesn't.

 

Anyway, we're basically on the same page, I think.

 

@Nbhor1more:

I also think that if you believe in God you might as well read as many different works of literature that reference this deity

 

Sure. But that's begging the question, is there any reason to believe God exists in the first place?

 

I'm all in favour of people learning about religions, however. Nothing will demonstrate the human origins of religion faster than comparing a decent cross-section of them.

 

It's also enlightening to watch two religious people arguing about whose religion is better. It's amazing to me that religious people will quite easily point out the flaws in someone else's religion, but they can't see how their own religion is subject to exactly the same criticisms.

 

@Sotha:

The idea is not to make anyone change their beliefs. We are merely discussing about them and attempting to see why others see things the way they see them.

 

Agreed.

[Springheel]

All I want to get out of this is that people here will respect each others beliefs

 

I wanted to address this concern, as it's come up a few times from various people.

 

It's important to separate respect for the right of people to believe what they wish from respecting the beliefs that someone actually holds. They are very different.

 

While I respect the right of people to choose what to believe, there are certain choices they could make that are not worthy of "respect" by anyone. Consider the belief that specific ethnic groups are sub-human, or that it's ok to torture babies for fun. No one would ever talk about "respecting" those beliefs. There are an untold number of other beliefs that are equally unworthy of respect, several of which (like denying the holocaust) have already been mentioned in this thread.

 

In truth, we don't respect "beliefs" at all. We respect people's reasons for their beliefs. If I tell you that I believe I've just won a new car, you might be impressed. If you ask me how I won it, imagine what would happen to your "respect" if I proceeded to say, "Well, I don't really know. I just have faith that I've won a new car; it just makes so much sense to me. I've had a lot of personal experiences this week that have lead me to believe I've won a new car. After all, you can't really say that I haven't won a new car, because nobody really knows."

 

In that situation, you would be very correct in NOT respecting my belief that I won a new car. You would probably think I was crazy. Yet when it comes to something like a belief in a supernatural creator of the universe, suddenly we are supposed to "respect" anything, regardless of whether the person has good reasons for believing it or not. I think this is fundamentally wrong.

 

Religious belief should be no more immune from criticism than any other belief. In fact, it should be criticized more heavily, because it deals with the most important claims one can make about reality, yet it rests, not on rationality or reason, but on "faith".

[jdude]

I never said they should be immune but why are you taking it upon yourself in this forum to attack others beliefs that they hold close to them self? Why not take it somewhere else, not a freakin video game forum with people who work together everyday.

[Springheel]

I never said they should be immune but why are you taking it upon yourself in this forum to attack others beliefs that they hold close to them self? Why not take it somewhere else, not a freakin video game forum with people who work together everyday.

 

#1. This is the off-topic forum.

 

#2. Some people actually enjoy these types of discussions.

 

#3. Anyone who doesn't want to participate in or read the discussion can easily avoid it.

 

 

(and if you want to get really technical about it, it wasn't me who brought religion up as a topic, it was you.)

 

I get the impression you've never read the Bible. Even if you've gone to church, even if you've watched movies on the subject or read summaries and interpretations online you wont understand any of it until you read the thing. When I started I had so many questions, criticisms, and generally low faith, but the book answered them all for me.

[jdude]

I told him if he's interested he should read more about it; he was the one who brought up God, so there's an obvious connection there. That isn't an invitation for a debate or for you to force your word continually despite me consistently saying, lets not do this it gets no where. Do you expect any better relationships with anyone here by telling us our beliefs are irrational because you think so? It's not like your a hound dog listening for a bell for food.

[Springheel]

I told him if he's interested he should read more about it; he was the one who brought up God, so there's an obvious connection there. That isn't an invitation for a debate

 

He brought up God in a casual manner, and you accused him (in so many words) of not understanding God ("I get the impression you've never read the Bible."). As soon as you start telling people what they should do in regards to God ("you wont understand any of it until you read the thing"), you're discussing religion. Don't then cry foul because other people start discussing it in ways you don't agree with.

 

for you to force your word continually despite me consistently saying, lets not do this it gets no where.

 

If you don't want to discuss it, then I have a novel solution--stop discussing it! No one is forcing you to read this thread, let alone continue to post in it. If you're going to post your opinion, then be prepared for people to disagree with you. That's how discussion works, and some people actually enjoy it.

[nbohr1more]

I think Springheel feels strongly about people using religion to help themselves work out real-world issues. I think it's valid that he would try to make sure that those who espouse the practice know his rebuttals. This is actually an act of Morality because he is looking out for the world at large when he is trying to steer this debate his way. I don't personally agree with the way he conveyed all this but I respect that he has the character to stick to his message and purpose in spite of whether it makes him look like a big jerk. I respect your weathering his comment for your own stance as well jdude.

[Springheel]

I respect that he has the character to stick to his message and purpose in spite of whether it makes him look like a big jerk.

 

 

 

Thanks for the backhanded compliment. I don't set out to look like a "big jerk" but I don't do warm fuzzies in these kinds of discussions either. In my view, people's publicly-stated opinions are fair game for criticisms. That's quite different from attacking individuals, which I don't believe I've done.

[jdude]

He brought up God in a casual manner, and you accused him (in so many words) of not understanding God ("I get the impression you've never read the Bible."). As soon as you start telling people what they should do in regards to God ("you wont understand any of it until you read the thing"), you're discussing religion. Don't then cry foul because other people start discussing it in ways you don't agree with.

 

 

 

If you don't want to discuss it, then I have a novel solution--stop discussing it! No one is forcing you to read this thread, let alone continue to post in it. If you're going to post your opinion, then be prepared for people to disagree with you. That's how discussion works, and some people actually enjoy it.

I didn't post my opinion. I said if he feels God is mad at him he should explore the Bible to try and understand it more. That's a suggestion. Your posting your opinion of religion is BS at the mere mention of religion or the Bible is completely different. I can't imagine you speaking to anyone in real life in the way you speak to people on here. Good idea too I will stop posting.

[Sotha]

I can't imagine you speaking to anyone in real life in the way you speak to people on here.

 

What was that all about?

Back in the gymnasium I had a course on debating and discussion skills and I have to say that Springs debating skill conforms quite well to the things I remember from the course. I didn't spot any logical fallacies, especially like ad hominem. Actually this has been a nice refresher on the Art for me.

 

If you have a discussion, people usually speak to people the way Spring did. It is basically a tennis game of arguments and counterarguments. Between the sets people check their definations and other things and then the fun continues. Important thing to understand that it is not personal. It is the matters debating, not people. Well, at least in the case if you have the discussion to have new insight to the topic. If the idea is to *win* the discussion, then the situation is a bit different.

 

At any rate, if this is the death blow to the interesting discussion, may I suggest that we try to wrap up some kind of conclusion or summary. Here is, distilled, what kind of impression the discussion has engraved on me. I apologize, it comes as a stream-of-tought and I cannot structure it better:

 

Looks like there will be friction if you take religion into a rational and by-the-textbook discussion. Someone would say sarcastically "surprise", but I say Why? Faith, by definition, eludes rationality? It does not have to be rational. It's more like a lifestyle. Like smoking or having the afternoon tea. Both are not necessarily rational behaviors other that they provide 'fun' for the individual. If religion provides 'fun' then great! However, the downside of this behavior (like smoking has the downside of health problems) is sometimes the inability or reluctance criticize or face criticism in certain areas. For not-so-religious types a word of warning: for some reason religious works cannot be criticized without the criticizer to be seen as 'hostile.' Looked like also Springs debating on the topic was also seen hostile in the end? What could be the reason for this perceived hostility? Faith makes others seem hostile?

[Domarius]

On man I did the very same! I called them my Jehovah's Witness Stalkers, and they came round every Saturday for weeks on end. Each week I reiterated that I'm a staunch atheist and that they had absolutely no hope of converting me, but that I loved a debate, and secretly thought it might be mice to introduce just a little doubt in their minds. And each week they would come over and shoot the breeze with me on my doorstep. We'd have a lovely debate that unfortunately never went anywhere though, because after every 'profound' point they made about How science couldn't possibly explain X, Y or Z, I'd inevitably answer with "yes, I agree, but I'm happy with that situation" or with "yes but I'm quite content to accept that it was all a massive coincidence".

 

Anyway, a word of warning. My wife was getting unhappy about these folk coming round uninvited. It had been 2 months, I had grown tired of the circular debates, the copies of "The Watchtower" were piling up (unread) and they had started to drop hints that they'd like to come into the house. I'd also got a bit annoyed at their narrow-mindedness. They just couldn't accept that my beliefs were as firmly held as theirs and that I was happy with those beliefs. It felt a little intolerant. The problem was that they were just so darned nice. How was I supposed to turn them away? It would be like punching Santa.

 

She told me that I need to stand firm and tell them to bugger off, and then she sat on the stairs next time they came over and just glared at me until I'd sent them packing. I did so, and yet they still came round next week. Now here's where it gets a little creepy. I wasn't in, and so my wife answered the door. "He's not in," she said. They didn't believe her. An argument ensued (a very placid, Christian argument), and my wife clearly said she wasn't interested. As she started to shut the door, one of them put his foot in the way to hold the door open. My wife (who's not to be trifled with) was fuming at this and told them very clearly what she thought of them and slammed the door in her face. They never returned, but the missus was (rightly) a little shaken up by the experience. Since then, I limit my theological discussions to online forums and friends.

 

Wow, what a pair of freaks! Well my ones seem much nicer. It was me who invited them in the first time, and they made sure I was okay with it - I just did it to get them out of the wind and rain, now I just do it cause it's better for us all to sit down. They constantly remind me that they would never force anything on me, and thank me for being so willing to discuss this.

 

For me, it's not about me just being happy with things not being explained - they really think they can convince me using reason, and the evolution book. I can't wait till this Saturday when I get to confront them with the deliberate misquotes from the book...

 

 

What a mess nobody intends to fold, and several forums members have become a lot less respected by either side. Common guys, I think this topic is a little too sensitive too continue with, I don't like to think of how bad it could get. Too many more topics of this nature are going to leave us bitter for each other.

 

Nobody will win, because nothing has changed, and we've both been given the shit end of the stick.

Religion is not just someone's way of life, it is their world, their life ambitions, their reason to live, they're not going to give it up for anything.

 

Please everyone put their pride aside like I have for the sake of rationality.

 

I really think this thread has run it's life.

 

Man I am always up for a harmless debate.

 

I'm generalising here, but in my experience, it's always the ones supporting religion that get all worked up.

 

I guess it's because it's a debate about something that only one side has an emotional interest in.

 

 

Yes, I really wish we could disable these silly "reputation" buttons. I'm not sure what purpose they're supposed to serve, but they certainly should NOT be used to knock someone who is participating in a valid discussion, even if you disagree with their views.

 

No one deserves a bad reputation for stating their opinions honestly.

 

Please, everyone, stop using them.

 

Wow, if this is really happening - that's fucked. That's the internet equivalent of turning this into a fist fight. Whoever's doing this, and whatever side you're on, fucking grow up and get out of the cave-man era.

 

Another question occurred to me a few days ago and made me think of you: As someone with a good knowledge of history, how do you deal with the discrepancies surrounding the date of Jesus' birth? Luke 2:2 claims it was during the period where Quirinius was governer of Syria, and Matthew 2:1 claims it was during the reign of Herod the Great. These two periods do not actually overlap. Quirinius' famous census was a good 10 years after the end of Herod's reign.

 

Most modern historians suggest that Luke's account is mistaken. However, if you believe the Bible is infallible then you would seem unable to accept that, so how do you rationalize this apparent contradiction?

 

Anyone who doesn't believe the bible contradicts itself, should watch this and then get back to me with the explanations, I'd really love to see them

All the contradictions in the bible, in quiz show form.

[Springheel]

Your posting your opinion of religion is BS at the mere mention of religion or the Bible is completely different

 

Are you exaggerating on purpose or do you really think that's what happened? I actually took some pains to hold back until the discussion really got going. As I recall, you used to blame Sotha for turning this into a debate on religion. Now it's my fault instead?

 

I can't imagine you speaking to anyone in real life in the way you speak to people on here

 

What have I done that you find so objectionable? Have I made any personal attacks? Have I insulted anyone? Have I made unfounded claims? I happen to think I've been quite reasonable.

 

I have to say that Springs debating skill conforms quite well to the things I remember from the course. I didn't spot any logical fallacies, especially like ad hominem.

 

Thanks.

 

for some reason religious works cannot be criticized without the criticizer to be seen as 'hostile.'

 

Yes, I think that's what this is really all about. Religion has been given some kind of special status for some time, where you just don't criticize it. Anyone who does is accused of being mean, hostile or rude, even though they're only saying the same kinds of things that would go completely unnoticed in the arena of politics or sports.

 

At any rate, if this is the death blow to the interesting discussion,

 

I don't see why it should be. Several people have expressed interest in continuing it.

 

I was going to sum up with a statement about feeling confident in your beliefs, but actually, Jdude himself already said it well earlier:

Most the people you are referring too become defensive about their beliefs easily simply because their beliefs are so weak I think. If they had actual faith in the Bible, they would not be shaken by harsh words against it

[OrbWeaver]

Wow, what a pair of freaks! Well my ones seem much nicer. It was me who invited them in the first time, and they made sure I was okay with it - I just did it to get them out of the wind and rain, now I just do it cause it's better for us all to sit down. They constantly remind me that they would never force anything on me, and thank me for being so willing to discuss this.

 

My Jehovah's Witness experience was similarly polite and pleasant. I told them that I was a scientist, and they proceeded to ask all about the theory of evolution, which I did my best to explain. The man was actually genuinely surprised to learn that evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life itself (biogenesis).

 

The one thing that always confuses me about JWs however is that if they believe there are only 144,000 places in heaven, why are they trying so hard to convert people? I did ask them this, but didn't get any clear answer.

[greebo]

Yes, I really wish we could disable these silly "reputation" buttons. I'm not sure what purpose they're supposed to serve, but they certainly should NOT be used to knock someone who is participating in a valid discussion, even if you disagree with their views.

 

No one deserves a bad reputation for stating their opinions honestly.

 

Please, everyone, stop using them.

I can remove the reputation permission from all groups, if we want to do that.

 

I can also edit any member's reputation score if somebody slipped into the negative range, but I don't want to go through 1000 people and edit the reputation for each of them, of course.

[nbohr1more]

The one thing that always confuses me about JWs however is that if they believe there are only 144,000 places in heaven, why are they trying so hard to convert people? I did ask them this, but didn't get any clear answer.

 

This reminds me of my thoughts on Star Trek style replicator/transporter technology and it's consequences for God having to manage the "supply of available souls".

 

 

I am disappointed that a stronger opponent on the Pro-Religion side didn't come to the fore. I was trying my best to muster a "Devil's Advocate" (or actually God's Advocate... ) side to this discussion but Springheel's and Sotha's elegant prose and logic were too enchanting to my Scientific side to want to drive into the metaphysical archives for anything resembling a good counterpoint.

 

Then Mortem simply conceded that religion is irrational but left us with his take that some irrationality is good (and left us the homework to re-read Immanuel Kant... ).

 

While I give him props for his skills, I think that Springheel knew that his debate tactic would probably be an easy win here. (But I also know he was hoping for a worthy counter....).

 

1) People equate "rational" with intelligence and logic

2) Use your exemplary skills in those two areas to show that your opponents are lacking

3) People will feel that you've proven your point about the opponent's stance because of step 1.

 

I also know that Demagogue could have provided the Devil's Advocate side in spades but I think he was also too enamored of the pro-Science side. He was only drawn in to defend modern philosophy in general.

Edited August 5, 2010 by nbohr1more

[nbohr1more]

I can remove the reputation permission from all groups, if we want to do that.

 

I can also edit any member's reputation score if somebody slipped into the negative range, but I don't want to go through 1000 people and edit the reputation for each of them, of course.

 

This is probably controversial but I think the team members should either be immune to Rep from us normal folk or have their own Rep system. I find it ludicrous that the primary architect of Saint Lucia has any negative rep.

[OrbWeaver]

I don't think there should be any "two-tier" reputation system; either it is available for everybody, or for nobody.

 

However, perhaps it could be disabled in the Off-Topic forum, but not in other forums? This would discourage its use to punish simple disagreements, but could still be used to control trolling or abusive posts in the more serious forums.