Atheist Arrogance?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 20 NEXT
 

AgedGrunt:

Kaulen Fuhs:
If by "taught to believe" you mean, "led by example", then yes. I was raised in the church, and am pretty well aware of what it can be like. The congregations I was part of weren't even particularly conservative.

Honestly, I hope you end up being vindicated here, and that we can coexist with monotheists, but history does not show this to be the case, and I'm simply not willing to let the benefit of the doubt be given.

It doesn't sound like you want to give peace a chance, and believe people can never change. Despite what some would have us believe, we've made a lot of progress over the past 20+ years. What I'd hope for is people to want to build on that rather than get out the pitchforks and torches because of a Chick-fil-A restaurant, the Boy Scouts or some plastic decorations in a public building. If that's the fight for progress, then it looks more like purging.

I don't want to give peace a chance if that means giving the religious the opportunity to stomp on all contrary perspectives again. All I want is a level playing field; that all beliefs be examined with the same scrutiny, and that those that don't hold up be seen for the farces they are.

Kaulen Fuhs:

AgedGrunt:

Kaulen Fuhs:
If by "taught to believe" you mean, "led by example", then yes. I was raised in the church, and am pretty well aware of what it can be like. The congregations I was part of weren't even particularly conservative.

Honestly, I hope you end up being vindicated here, and that we can coexist with monotheists, but history does not show this to be the case, and I'm simply not willing to let the benefit of the doubt be given.

It doesn't sound like you want to give peace a chance, and believe people can never change. Despite what some would have us believe, we've made a lot of progress over the past 20+ years. What I'd hope for is people to want to build on that rather than get out the pitchforks and torches because of a Chick-fil-A restaurant, the Boy Scouts or some plastic decorations in a public building. If that's the fight for progress, then it looks more like purging.

I don't want to give peace a chance if that means giving the religious the opportunity to stomp on all contrary perspectives again. All I want is a level playing field; that all beliefs be examined with the same scrutiny, and that those that don't hold up be seen for the farces they are.

Have years of scientific evidence not already done that for you?

Shadowstar38:

Kaulen Fuhs:

AgedGrunt:

It doesn't sound like you want to give peace a chance, and believe people can never change. Despite what some would have us believe, we've made a lot of progress over the past 20+ years. What I'd hope for is people to want to build on that rather than get out the pitchforks and torches because of a Chick-fil-A restaurant, the Boy Scouts or some plastic decorations in a public building. If that's the fight for progress, then it looks more like purging.

I don't want to give peace a chance if that means giving the religious the opportunity to stomp on all contrary perspectives again. All I want is a level playing field; that all beliefs be examined with the same scrutiny, and that those that don't hold up be seen for the farces they are.

Have years of scientific evidence not already done that for you?

For me, personally? It's a pretty good first step, and this country isn't exactly boiling over with young earth creationists, so it could be much worse. Still, repeated calls for returning this country to its Judeo-Christian "roots" make me uneasy, and there are just enough Republicans who prefer to vote according to the Bible as opposed to the facts to keep things like gay marriage proponents and abortion advocates neatly on their toes (not that everyone who opposes these things is necessarily religious, but remove the religious component, and opposition quickly dies).

I have no problem with people who are privately religious, aside from that little nagging voice that everyone gets about people they think are incorrect. What I care about are people like Rick Santorum, who would see American politics reflect their beliefs.

Silvanus:
The "vast majority" I mentioned referred to Christians, who, you'll notice, I did not collectively accuse of any abuse of power. That's selective reading on your part, I think.

Actually the original context came from a post that simply labeled "theists", having no specific religious denomination, so you effectively argued against all religious people.

And while you do have some modifiers such as "many" and "vast majority" and try to limit the scope of your criticisms, lately it's sounded more like walking back the initial response.

In the grand scheme of things, you have a point about the dangers of letting religious institutions ride roughshod over others and dominate an issue, but at the same time it's important, at least for the sake of this thread, to not make it sound like there's this evil, God-believing juggernaut force that has consolidated power and cannot be stopped. There's a lot of fair criticism but also a lot of reaction that sounds just as nutty as the craziest Christian beliefs.

Kaulen Fuhs:
I don't want to give peace a chance if that means giving the religious the opportunity to stomp on all contrary perspectives again. All I want is a level playing field; that all beliefs be examined with the same scrutiny, and that those that don't hold up be seen for the farces they are.

It doesn't mean that, and you contradict yourself with a "level playing field" and treating belief with equal scrutiny. You're singling Christianity out and making an example of it, and from your latest post it seems this could be heavily influenced by politics.

Slight correction, after posting: You do criticize monotheism as a whole, but for the most part these discussions focus on Christianity, rarely mentioning denominations, and never talk about other religions of the world.

I have no problem with people who are privately religious, aside from that little nagging voice that everyone gets about people they think are incorrect. What I care about are people like Rick Santorum, who would see American politics reflect their beliefs.

For the record, politics is a reflection of belief. Without it, what do any of us stand for? If you support gay marriage across the US, realize that you, too, want to see American politics reflect your beliefs. If you're going to assert that religion is an illegitimate source of personal belief, then that's a different argument.

Jayemsal:
Mutual respect went out the window when Christians started murdering people, using a book as justification.

Hmm, either I could go into the long history of Europe's cultural influence over Christianity and how people's of older cultures tendency to be hostile against anything different from themselves and how the religious justification for the spreading of the faith by the sword is...lacking. I could point out that much of the violence that was done is Christianity's name had many ulterior motives. I could talk about how leaders of countries often grasp at any kind of straws for justification of policy, or I could just say that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did quite similar things in the name of a Atheistic ideology. Your choice.

I don't say this because I am Christian, I say this because is find it quite unfortunate that anyone would harbor such an attitude towards any group with such a poor reasoning behind it.

One cannot prove the existence of God anymore than I can provide proof of His existence. Atheism is as much a belief system as any other. Simple as that.

Shock and Awe:

Jayemsal:
Mutual respect went out the window when Christians started murdering people, using a book as justification.

Hmm, either I could go into the long history of Europe's cultural influence over Christianity and how people's of older cultures tendency to be hostile against anything different from themselves and how the religious justification for the spreading of the faith by the sword is...lacking. I could point out that much of the violence that was done is Christianity's name had many ulterior motives. I could talk about how leaders of countries often grasp at any kind of straws for justification of policy, or I could just say that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did quite similar things in the name of a Atheistic ideology. Your choice.

I don't say this because I am Christian, I say this because is find it quite unfortunate that anyone would harbor such an attitude towards any group with such a poor reasoning behind it.

Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did not have a religious text, from which they could take any justification they wanted. If anything, I admire their honesty. The fact of the matter is, Christians have been getting away with atrocities, even in modern times, because of the way in which they treat their holy books, the bible is nothing more than a weapon, to some people.

Jayemsal:

Shock and Awe:

Jayemsal:
Mutual respect went out the window when Christians started murdering people, using a book as justification.

Hmm, either I could go into the long history of Europe's cultural influence over Christianity and how people's of older cultures tendency to be hostile against anything different from themselves and how the religious justification for the spreading of the faith by the sword is...lacking. I could point out that much of the violence that was done is Christianity's name had many ulterior motives. I could talk about how leaders of countries often grasp at any kind of straws for justification of policy, or I could just say that Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did quite similar things in the name of a Atheistic ideology. Your choice.

I don't say this because I am Christian, I say this because is find it quite unfortunate that anyone would harbor such an attitude towards any group with such a poor reasoning behind it.

Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao did not have a religious text, from which they could take any justification they wanted. If anything, I admire their honesty. The fact of the matter is, Christians have been getting away with atrocities, even in modern times, because of the way in which they treat their holy books, the bible is nothing more than a weapon, to some people.

You're right, they did not have a religious text, they had a non-religious ideology that said that religion was to best stamped out by any and all means.

AgedGrunt:

Kaulen Fuhs:
I don't want to give peace a chance if that means giving the religious the opportunity to stomp on all contrary perspectives again. All I want is a level playing field; that all beliefs be examined with the same scrutiny, and that those that don't hold up be seen for the farces they are.

It doesn't mean that, and you contradict yourself with a "level playing field" and treating belief with equal scrutiny. You're singling Christianity out and making an example of it, and from your latest post it seems this could be heavily influenced by politics.

Slight correction, after posting: You do criticize monotheism as a whole, but for the most part these discussions focus on Christianity, rarely mentioning denominations, and never talk about other religions of the world.

I have no problem with people who are privately religious, aside from that little nagging voice that everyone gets about people they think are incorrect. What I care about are people like Rick Santorum, who would see American politics reflect their beliefs.

For the record, politics is a reflection of belief. Without it, what do any of us stand for? If you support gay marriage across the US, realize that you, too, want to see American politics reflect your beliefs. If you're going to assert that religion is an illegitimate source of personal belief, then that's a different argument.

That was basically my argument, yes. Religious beliefs, not belief in general.

And the reason Christianity bears the brunt of my attacks in this thread is its heavy influence on American politics, and my desire to see that end. Buddhism may be just as irrational, but I don't see Buddhists pressing the teachings of Buddha into the classroom, or attempting to, anyway.

Big_Willie_Styles:
One cannot prove the existence of God anymore than I can provide proof of His existence. Atheism is as much a belief system as any other. Simple as that.

Do you believe in unicorns? If not, would you consider not believing in unicorns a belief system?

Kaulen Fuhs:

Big_Willie_Styles:
One cannot prove the existence of God anymore than I can provide proof of His existence. Atheism is as much a belief system as any other. Simple as that.

Do you believe in unicorns? If not, would you consider not believing in unicorns a belief system?

You just used the word believe, not "know." See, recorded archaeology has confirmed that unicorns did not exist as horses with horns. Although, it should be noted that the unicorn of the sea, the Narwhal, had ancestors who lived on land. Yes, whales were originally land creatures before evolving and adapting to survive in the sea.

But, I'm just splitting hairs. You're simply a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.

Unicorns did not exist in the way we portray them. But believing in a Creator is not something that can be proved or disproven. It is faith, something atheists don't seem to comprehend all that well.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Big_Willie_Styles:
One cannot prove the existence of God anymore than I can provide proof of His existence. Atheism is as much a belief system as any other. Simple as that.

Do you believe in unicorns? If not, would you consider not believing in unicorns a belief system?

You just used the word believe, not "know." See, recorded archaeology has confirmed that unicorns did not exist as horses with horns. Although, it should be noted that the unicorn of the sea, the Narwhal, had ancestors who lived on land. Yes, whales were originally land creatures before evolving and adapting to survive in the sea.

But, I'm just splitting hairs. You're simply a pyromaniac in a field of straw men.

Unicorns did not exist in the way we portray them. But believing in a Creator is not something that can be proved or disproven. It is faith, something atheists don't seem to comprehend all that well.

And you have no idea what a strawman looks like.

Atheists, or at least rational ones, do not say "No gods exist". They say "There is insufficient evidence of gods, therefore I have no reason to think they exist".

You know, I think you might actually be quite familiar with strawmen...

Kaulen Fuhs:

And you have no idea what a strawman looks like.

Atheists, or at least rational ones, do not say "No gods exist". They say "There is insufficient evidence of gods, therefore I have no reason to think they exist".

You know, I think you might actually be quite familiar with strawmen...

So, you bringing up the "unicorn belief" thing and then knocking it down is not a straw man? HI-larious.

Faith is about believing in something you can't prove to be true. What about that can't you comprehend, fine sir?

Also, Indiana Jones showed us the difference between Fact and Truth a long time ago. (Archaeology is the pursuit of fact, philosophy the pursuit of truth.)

Also, straw man is still two words.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Kaulen Fuhs:

And you have no idea what a strawman looks like.

Atheists, or at least rational ones, do not say "No gods exist". They say "There is insufficient evidence of gods, therefore I have no reason to think they exist".

You know, I think you might actually be quite familiar with strawmen...

So, you bringing up the "unicorn belief" thing and then knocking it down is not a straw man? HI-larious.

Faith is about believing in something you can't prove to be true. What about that can't you comprehend, fine sir?

Also, Indiana Jones showed us the difference between Fact and Truth a long time ago. (Archaeology is the pursuit of fact, philosophy the pursuit of truth.)

Also, straw man is still two words.

No, it isn't. Allow me to explain why.

Long ago, man invented a mythical creature that was basically a horse with a horn on its head. This creature had magical powers, but what exactly those powers were differed based on the storyteller. They called it a "unicorn".

Also, long ago, man invented a mythical creature that was basically man's projected insecurities/ignorances. This creature had magical powers, but what exactly those powers were differed based on the storyteller. They called it a "god".

And great, good! Faith can't be proven, fantastic! Quit trying to put it in science books, then.

Kaulen Fuhs:
No, it isn't. Allow me to explain why.

Long ago, man invented a mythical creature that was basically a horse with a horn on its head. This creature had magical powers, but what exactly those powers were differed based on the storyteller. They called it a "unicorn".

Also, long ago, man invented a mythical creature that was basically man's projected insecurities/ignorances. This creature had magical powers, but what exactly those powers were differed based on the storyteller. They called it a "god".

And great, good! Faith can't be proven, fantastic! Quit trying to put it in science books, then.

Yeah, and you clearly stole that from somebody else, but let's continue on, shall we?

God is not a creature, no physical body. He is not corporeal.

But, on that point, I showed you where ancient peoples may have invented the idea of a unicorn from.

You just decide to be a fool and bring up an unfair extrapolation. You used a small group of Christians to smear all Christians. You assume I agree with the tarts as well! How's that for bad faith?

Big_Willie_Styles:

Kaulen Fuhs:
No, it isn't. Allow me to explain why.

Long ago, man invented a mythical creature that was basically a horse with a horn on its head. This creature had magical powers, but what exactly those powers were differed based on the storyteller. They called it a "unicorn".

Also, long ago, man invented a mythical creature that was basically man's projected insecurities/ignorances. This creature had magical powers, but what exactly those powers were differed based on the storyteller. They called it a "god".

And great, good! Faith can't be proven, fantastic! Quit trying to put it in science books, then.

Yeah, and you clearly stole that from somebody else, but let's continue on, shall we?

God is not a creature, no physical body. He is not corporeal.

But, on that point, I showed you where ancient peoples may have invented the idea of a unicorn from.

You just decide to be a fool and bring up an unfair extrapolation. You used a small group of Christians to smear all Christians. You assume I agree with the tarts as well! How's that for bad faith?

If you aren't one of the "tarts", I wasn't talking to you. Made that abundantly clear. Besides, I don't need to use the "bad" ones to smear people like you. You're doing well enough on your own.

Lying, for example, about my example being plagiarized from someone else. That's a pretty damning claim, so I hope you brought some proof. Knowing you, though, I can predict pretty well that you didn't.

Kaulen Fuhs:
If you aren't one of the "tarts", I wasn't talking to you. Made that abundantly clear. Besides, I don't need to use the "bad" ones to smear people like you. You're doing well enough on your own.

Lying, for example, about my example being plagiarized from someone else. That's a pretty damning claim, so I hope you brought some proof. Knowing you, though, I can predict pretty well that you didn't.

Ow, trying to say my argument disproves itself! Without actually disproving it yourself! How hurtful! HI-larious.

Google "Invisible Pink Unicorn." I've heard the argument before, sonny. It is a tired and boring one that doesn't really say anything of real consequence or significance.

I'd go all Wesley on you, but I don't wish to be rebuked by the administrators.

But as you wish.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Kaulen Fuhs:
If you aren't one of the "tarts", I wasn't talking to you. Made that abundantly clear. Besides, I don't need to use the "bad" ones to smear people like you. You're doing well enough on your own.

Lying, for example, about my example being plagiarized from someone else. That's a pretty damning claim, so I hope you brought some proof. Knowing you, though, I can predict pretty well that you didn't.

Ow, trying to say my argument disproves itself! Without actually disproving it yourself! How hurtful! HI-larious.

Google "Invisible Pink Unicorn." I've heard the argument before, sonny. It is a tired and boring one that doesn't really say anything of real consequence or significance.

I'd go all Wesley on you, but I don't wish to be rebuked by the administrators.

But as you wish.

It says more than all your claims of god.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Google "Invisible Pink Unicorn." I've heard the argument before, sonny. It is a tired and boring one that doesn't really say anything of real consequence or significance.

The "invisible pink unicorn"-argument is about the burden of proof, about who has to provide evidence/who has to disprove claims, not about the origin of or reason for supernatural beliefs. Just because both feature a unicorn doesn't mean he ripped off the "invisible pink unicorn".

Kaulen Fuhs:
It says more than all your claims of god.

Looks like somebody went to empty rhetoric school!

Skeleon:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Google "Invisible Pink Unicorn." I've heard the argument before, sonny. It is a tired and boring one that doesn't really say anything of real consequence or significance.

The "invisible pink unicorn"-argument is about the burden of proof, about who has to provide evidence/who has to disprove claims, not about the origin of or reason for supernatural beliefs. Just because both feature a unicorn doesn't mean he ripped off the "invisible pink unicorn".

I cannot prove the existence of God. No one can. Burden to prove doesn't matter when it comes to faith. As I said in the beginning here, atheists can't seem to grasp the very concept of faith.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Kaulen Fuhs:
It says more than all your claims of god.

Looks like somebody went to empty rhetoric school!

Trying not to go too far over your head. After all, arguments and evidence aren't your forte, so I don't want to give anyone the impression I'm picking on you.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Skeleon:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Google "Invisible Pink Unicorn." I've heard the argument before, sonny. It is a tired and boring one that doesn't really say anything of real consequence or significance.

The "invisible pink unicorn"-argument is about the burden of proof, about who has to provide evidence/who has to disprove claims, not about the origin of or reason for supernatural beliefs. Just because both feature a unicorn doesn't mean he ripped off the "invisible pink unicorn".

I cannot prove the existence of God. No one can. Burden to prove doesn't matter when it comes to faith. As I said in the beginning here, atheists can't seem to grasp the very concept of faith.

Sure we can. We just reject it as a worthless relic of a bygone era.

Also, tsk tsk, still not admitting you lied about me. Jesus would not approve, no siree...

Kaulen Fuhs:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Kaulen Fuhs:
It says more than all your claims of god.

Looks like somebody went to empty rhetoric school!

Trying not to go too far over your head. After all, arguments and evidence aren't your forte, so I don't want to give anyone the impression I'm picking on you.

Evidence is not what faith is. Do we understand each other, to quoth my favorite movie.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Looks like somebody went to empty rhetoric school!

Trying not to go too far over your head. After all, arguments and evidence aren't your forte, so I don't want to give anyone the impression I'm picking on you.

Evidence is not what faith is. Do we understand each other, to quoth my favorite movie.

Yes, but we don't care about faith. The word means nothing to us, so coming in here and trying to argue with us using terms we don't respect seems like an excercise in futility.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Skeleon:

The "invisible pink unicorn"-argument is about the burden of proof, about who has to provide evidence/who has to disprove claims, not about the origin of or reason for supernatural beliefs. Just because both feature a unicorn doesn't mean he ripped off the "invisible pink unicorn".

I cannot prove the existence of God. No one can. Burden to prove doesn't matter when it comes to faith. As I said in the beginning here, atheists can't seem to grasp the very concept of faith.

Sure we can. We just reject it as a worthless relic of a bygone era.

Also, tsk tsk, still not admitting you lied about me. Jesus would not approve, no siree...

Yeah, so said every atheist in world history. You're not unique, sonny. Your assertion in no God does not prove there isn't one. Yeah, and you can say the burden of proof is on me. That onus doesn't work because faith is not a courtroom. There's no jury out on it. It's just faith. You chose to belief or not, that's the end of the story.

I believe, you don't. Only one here is truly arrogant about it, though. I just like messing with arrogant atheists. Seems like fun to me.

Kaulen Fuhs:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Trying not to go too far over your head. After all, arguments and evidence aren't your forte, so I don't want to give anyone the impression I'm picking on you.

Evidence is not what faith is. Do we understand each other, to quoth my favorite movie.

Yes, but we don't care about faith. The word means nothing to us, so coming in here and trying to argue with us using terms we don't respect seems like an excercise in futility.

More like fun to me. You don't respect a concept. The debate of this thread is the "arrogant atheist." I just keep laughing at y'all proving it. That's where the joy lies, fine sir.

Big_Willie_Styles:
I cannot prove the existence of God. No one can. Burden to prove doesn't matter when it comes to faith. As I said in the beginning here, atheists can't seem to grasp the very concept of faith.

Are you of a particular religion or are you a "general" Theist? I'm asking because I've made the observation that people of a particular religious background tend to apply different standards of evidence to their particular faith than they do to the faith of other religions, also. So, say, the arguments in favour of Christianity will be judged on a different basis than those in favour of Islam or Hinduism or whatever. Not to mention anything else in your life that you accept or reject except for your faith.

You're right in my case, I can't quite grasp the concept of faith. I never was religious. I try to be consistent in my standards of evidence. I'm sure I fail to do so, but at least I try and I don't hold my biases up as a virtue, as something to aspire to. But what of the many, many Atheists who used to be religious? Who used to use different standards of evidence on their faith than anything else? I'd assume they grasp faith much better thanks to their personal experience, yet they've rejected it.

Also, that wasn't the point of my response. I meant to show that Kaulen_Fuhs didn't rip the "insivible pink unicorn" off, because his mentioning of a unicorn had nothing to do with the thrust of that argument.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Kaulen Fuhs:

Big_Willie_Styles:

I cannot prove the existence of God. No one can. Burden to prove doesn't matter when it comes to faith. As I said in the beginning here, atheists can't seem to grasp the very concept of faith.

Sure we can. We just reject it as a worthless relic of a bygone era.

Also, tsk tsk, still not admitting you lied about me. Jesus would not approve, no siree...

Yeah, so said every atheist in world history. You're not unique, sonny. Your assertion in no God does not prove there isn't one. Yeah, and you can say the burden of proof is on me. That onus doesn't work because faith is not a courtroom. There's no jury out on it. It's just faith. You chose to belief or not, that's the end of the story.

I believe, you don't. Only one here is truly arrogant about it, though. I just like messing with arrogant atheists. Seems like fun to me.

Right, because I inject myself into conversations I'm not a part of, that have nothing to do with me, contribute nothing, and then accuse everyone else of being arrogant. I don't really have anything else to say to you. You can have the last word.

Skeleon:
Are you of a particular religion or are you a "general" Theist? I'm asking because I've made the observation that people of a particular religious background tend to apply different standards of evidence to their particular faith than they do to the faith of other religions, also. So, say, the arguments in favour of Christianity will be judged on a different basis than those in favour of Islam or Hinduism or whatever. Not to mention anything else in your life that you accept or reject except for your faith.

You're right in my case, I can't quite grasp the concept of faith. I never was religious. I try to be consistent in my standards of evidence. I'm sure I fail to do so, but at least I try and I don't hold my biases up as a virtue, as something to aspire to. But what of the many, many Atheists who used to be religious? Who used to use different standards of evidence on their faith than anything else? I'd assume they grasp faith much better thanks to their personal experience, yet they've rejected it.

Also, that wasn't the point of my response. I meant to show that Kaulen_Fuhs didn't rip the "insivible pink unicorn" off, because his mentioning of a unicorn had nothing to do with the thrust of that argument.

Good job assuming bad faith on my part, but please, continue.

I am all for leaving people to whatever they want unless they are infringing on other people's liberty. (Murder is a good example of an infringement.)

They reject faith, it doesn't mean they don't understand it. That's the point I'm trying to make. Faith is all about trust. Telling someone to prove their trust is also only said by people that want you to do something naughty (peer pressure is the most common version of this terrible phenomenon.)

You're asking me to prove the trust I have in my religion. That's just not something the religious do. They tell you one has to experience it for themselves.

And, to answer your question, I believe in the sect of a particular religion partly due to the badassery of its first proponent. Now, let's play the guessing game, eh? Hint: He did for religion what Galileo did for science and philosophy.

Kaulen Fuhs:
Right, because I inject myself into conversations I'm not a part of, that have nothing to do with me, contribute nothing, and then accuse everyone else of being arrogant. I don't really have anything else to say to you. You can have the last word.

The last word is where it's at though. You only think it doesn't concern me. I just enjoy being a fly in the ointment to those who construct terrible arguments. I love debating. It's my anti-drug.

Big_Willie_Styles:
They reject faith, it doesn't mean they don't understand it. That's the point I'm trying to make. Faith is all about trust. Telling someone to prove their trust is also only said by people that want you to do something naughty (peer pressure is the most common version of this terrible phenomenon.)

You're asking me to prove the trust I have in my religion. That's just not something the religious do. They tell you one has to experience it for themselves.

I didn't do anything of the sort, I was just curious to see whether you do the thing with the different standards of evidence I mentioned. What you must understand is that your trust in your religion is irrelevant to anybody but you and that when you make claims, people will want more than your assurances that you really do have faith. That's about it. That's why Kaulen_Fuhs says faith is essentially worthless. It may not be worthless to you, but the moment there's a discussion, it is no longer about you personally.

And, to answer your question, I believe in the sect of a particular religion partly due to the badassery of its first proponent. Now, let's play the guessing game, eh? Hint: He did for religion what Galileo did for science and philosophy.

I'm not interested in that game. It's sufficient to know you believe in one particular religion and are part of one particular sect thereof, over all the others.

Skeleon:

Big_Willie_Styles:
They reject faith, it doesn't mean they don't understand it. That's the point I'm trying to make. Faith is all about trust. Telling someone to prove their trust is also only said by people that want you to do something naughty (peer pressure is the most common version of this terrible phenomenon.)

You're asking me to prove the trust I have in my religion. That's just not something the religious do. They tell you one has to experience it for themselves.

I didn't do anything of the sort, I was just curious to see whether you do the thing with the different standards of evidence I mentioned. What you must understand is that your trust in your religion is irrelevant to anybody but you and that when you make claims, people will want more than your assurances that you really do have faith. That's about it. That's why Kaulen_Fuhs says faith is essentially worthless. It may not be worthless to you, but the moment there's a discussion, it is no longer about you personally.

And, to answer your question, I believe in the sect of a particular religion partly due to the badassery of its first proponent. Now, let's play the guessing game, eh? Hint: He did for religion what Galileo did for science and philosophy.

I'm not interested in that game. It's sufficient to know you believe in one particular religion and are part of one particular sect thereof, over all the others.

To paraphrase the atheist David Hume, all truth is subjective because humans are imperfect. In short, the only real truth any individual has is his or her own thoughts and opinions.

Religion is also insanely personal. Any attempt to deny that fact is just being dishonest.

Big_Willie_Styles:
To paraphrase the atheist David Hume, all truth is subjective because humans are imperfect. In short, the only real truth any individual has is his or her own thoughts and opinions.

Religion is also insanely personal. Any attempt to deny that fact is just being dishonest.

Solipsism is utterly worthless for achieving anything. I may be a brain in a jar, but so what? If this is a simulation, then the best way of learning of its limitation is still one of trying to figure out how this world works, not one of revelling in one's subjectivity and faulty senses.

But I think we've identified the underlying disconnect. I think of subjectivity as something that has its place in all sorts of areas of life, but not in understanding how the world works. When we're talking about reality and truth, being as objective as possible and compensating for our subjectivity as best we can is essential. We shouldn't put trust in that subjectivity but try to lessen its impact. More over, your particular subjectivity will be utterly meaningless to mine, even if I were to embrace my own subjectivity. That's why appeals to faith carry no weight for me whatsoever.

Skeleon:

Big_Willie_Styles:
To paraphrase the atheist David Hume, all truth is subjective because humans are imperfect. In short, the only real truth any individual has is his or her own thoughts and opinions.

Religion is also insanely personal. Any attempt to deny that fact is just being dishonest.

Solipsism is utterly worthless for achieving anything. I may be a brain in a jar, but so what? If this is a simulation, then the best way of learning of its limitation is still one of trying to figure out how this world works, not one of revelling in one's subjectivity and faulty senses.

But I think we've identified the underlying disconnect. I think of subjectivity as something that has its place in all sorts of areas of life, but not in understanding how the world works. When we're talking about reality and truth, being as objective as possible and compensating for our subjectivity as best we can is essential. We shouldn't put trust in that subjectivity but try to lessen its impact. More over, your particular subjectivity will be utterly meaningless to mine, even if I were to embrace my own subjectivity. That's why appeals to faith carry no weight for me whatsoever.

David Hume's philosophical argument that was the Induction Fallacy is awesome in its power to disarm somebody's rhetorical arsenal.

Objectivity is impossible to truly obtain by humans since our knowledge of the world is dependent on our senses, which fail us all the damn time.

As a religious man, I would say that God is the only thing that can be truly objective. He knows everything, is present everywhere, and can do everything: the trifecta of objectivity.

Subjectivity has different levels of validity. There's the crazy hobo in the alley yelling about giant earwigs invading his dumpster. And then there's people like Einstein with his Theory of Relativity. I would so love to go at the speed of light, but the complications with the acceleration and deceleration (and our ability to perceive things at those speeds to even begin with) are difficult to overcome (outside of just getting to that speed in the first place.)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . . . 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here