God

[SaiyanHajime]

Like how you think that a comment like "you cannot disprove God" is valid. It's not, because you cannot disprove anything. This is just a fact. It's silliness. Argument from ignorance, or proving a negative. Whatever you want to call it. It's illogical. This isn't a personal opinion of mine, but you seem to think it is? It seems weird that somone who is such an enthusiastic debater wouldn't understand why it is a fallacy.

Your last post was nice though, and when my brain can cope I'll get back to it.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Negatives are only provable when the positive oposite is avalible to be observed! You could prove to me that there are no Russians in your dorm, only by showing me everything that was in your dorm. I'd conclude that, indeed, there were no Russians there. But only by viewing everything that was there instead of Russians.

You cannot prove to me that the Dodo is entirely extinct. Of course, since the Dodo was only found on one tiny island in the Indian ocean, it's highly unlikley there are any hiding there. Other suposedly extinct crypids are less unbelievable, as the once thought to be extinct Coelacanth prooves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

I'd also argue that a statement can be both true and false. It depends on the specifics of the premise.

You cannot prove a negative without consulting it's positive oposite. That shouldn't have to be pointed out, UC. Unless you want to find an example where proving a negative does not involve the positive oposite?

Let's reffer to Russle's Teapot again.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

 

[SaiyanHajime]

A statement cannot be both true and false, Joey, no matter what the context.

You seem to like arguing with references to logic - so why do you make this statement, which defies one of the very LAWS of logic?

The Law of Non-Contradiction: p and not p cannot be true.

Depends what p is and how specific you are about it. What about if I said, non-Newtonian liquid is a solid. Well, yeah, sometimes it is. Most of the time it isn't, though. True and false doesn't account for "sometimes" which is why p has to be very specific. Non-Newtonian liquid is a solid when pressure is applied to it. Now, this statement is true.

Negatives are only provable when the positive oposite is avalible to be observed!

In this case, then nothing can be proven true, because it's impossible to generalize the existence of things under only a few cases in which we've observed them to be so.

So you could tell me that the Dodo existed, but I could simply say that all pictures of the Dodo were doctored to make a common bird appear as the Dodo. You could tell me that people actually observed the Dodo - I could say that those people mistook another bird for the Dodo. You could say that we have fossils of the Dodo - I could say that those fossils are fake or are misinterpreted from other creatures.

Indeed, you could... And my point is that people DO.

After all, if we all viewed things like that, well, then there would be no proven existences - merely theories.

Well, they are theories. Scientific theories. Which are factual.

Since no Dodo has been found in (however long it is) it's logical to assume there are none left, until one is found. It would be thoroughly stupid to assume it exists until you'd checked that EVERY living organism on this planet was not a Dodo.

Same with God. Since no evidence has been found for God, it is logical to assume there is no God, until evidence is found.

This is what argument from ignorance is about. It doesn't prove there is no God, the same as it doesn't prove there are no Dodos left, it just points out that until proven otherwise there is no reason to think there is. It is, however, just silly to state that "nobody has proven he DOESN'T exist" and any good book or web-page on argument theory will tell you this. Burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim, which is you.

As for Russell's Teapot...well, unfortunately, it doesn't apply here, Joey, because you forgot one important point:

Russell’s Teapot is presented under the impression that faith is blind faith – that, for example, you believe something just because you can’t prove it wrong. In the case of my beliefs on God, that’s not true. I have reasons to believe what I believe about the existence of God – I wouldn’t believe in God if I didn’t have these reasons. As such, Russell’s Teapot doesn’t really apply to my beliefs beyond the basic premise that to some people, the very belief in such a thing would look ridiculous – and I don’t think atheists need a comparison to a teapot to think that my belief in God is ridiculous, do they? Don’t atheists think that a belief in God is ridiculous enough in the first place…?

So...Russell's Teapot doesn't actually have to be explained. If you want to believe that here's a teapot floating around, you're free to believe that. Some people believe in the flying spaghetti monster - you're free to believe that too.

Nobody believes in the FSM. It is, like Russle's teapot, a parady to take the piss out of belief in God. If you think people believe in it, then maybe the parody doesn't work, since it's designed to make belief in God look stupid but you're treating it with equal validity. How odd.

You make a really good point actually about blind faith... The problem is you won't go on to then explain those reasons.

You probably don't because you already know my response. "Well, I was praying to the Teapot for a sign, and my poster fell off the wall."

A friend of mine said God spoke to them that way, I just replaced God with the Teapot.

So maybe you don't make such a good point after-all, on closer inspection. Of course it does depend on what you count as reasons for believing. I might be, again, putting words into your mouth. So please share.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

If you tell me that Tom Cruise was in the movie Top Gun, and I constantly refuse to believe it...well, which one of us is at fault? Even if you show me the movie, and I continue to refute it, what more can you do? Is it fair, therefore, for me to continue to dispute it, despite you showing me all of the evidence you have?

Lol. You have not shown me your evidence in a way even slightly comparable to literally being able to see that Tom Cruise is in Top Gun.

I can see you're right now about the true and false thing. It's the same logic fart I had with 2+2 not always = 4. I'm not even sure how we got on to the subject of something being both true and false, though?

Personal evidence is problematic, because psychology and to a point evolution explains why you experience such things far better. I think that any communication with God you have, I, and every other human being also experiences. It's just we each explain it as something different. We each observe it, and form an opinion of what it is. That doesn't make me right and you wrong. I just want to know why you go for what you refer to as God?

Why do I write it off as brain farting? Because there is no reason to think it's anything different? Why assume something is supernatural, without any good reason to? Why even assume anything supernatural exists, in the first place? It just doesn't make any sense to me. I suppose that's just how my brain works, and you'll argue the same.

A couple of years ago there was something strange hovering around my garden. It looked like a tiny humming bird. The way it moved. I went out and followed it around the garden. It was really, really, weird. I couldn't work out what it was, I couldn't get close enough to really see, I couldn't even place what group of animals it was. Insect or bird, were the only vaguely logical options, but it moved like neither. It couldn't have been a humming bird, because there are none in this country - I've never even seen one in a zoo. So, what insect could it be? I had NO idea. I went through all the moths and butterflies found in the UK that were the right size and then went through videos of the 5 of so to find one that moved the same.

This was what I concluded it must be...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VU-Vqq-YZUg

I had no reason to believe that it was anything supernatural... like some mythical creature, such as a fairy. But whilst looking for an ID I came across several people who concluded that it was either a UFO or some sort of mythical creature.

This doesn't help my argument. Like I've already said, my brain is just a skeptical one that wants to fit everything categorically into things I already know have been proven and observed.

My point is still, why assume it's anything supernatural, in the first place? I get the little voice inside my head, that's not actually a little voice as such, but more a nagging. So does EVERYONE. Creepy coincidences happen to me all the time, but they are just that, coincidences... Why would I assume that something magical was going on behind it when so much in this world over human history has been proven to not be magical at all, but simple a fact of science?

I respect most of what you've said, and you're certainly a better mathematical mind then me (though this isn't hard and it would be an insult to suggest anyone was below me mathematically), which is why you thrash me with things like the true and false logic... What you're wrong about is that not being able to disprove God is some sort of argument for believing. It's not, because why believe in the first place? I understand that once you do, everything else makes sense. But why? Your answer is "I just do". Unless you can explain why you just do, how can I be expected to understand? If you don't expect me, or want me, or care about me understanding... Why bother with this discussion?

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Your Tom Cruise analogy is just bad, UC. Me saying that has got nothing to do with me being blind to something you're seeing.

Literally being able to see Tom Cruise is entirely different to how you may witness God.

Think of reading. The literal words, such as the ones in this posts, are factual. They are undeniably there. Whatever my post conjours up inside you, however, is a personal interpretation. Everyone undoubtably interprets differently.

I find it odd, frankly, that you don't want to repeat your experiances with God but are happy to go over the same argumentative point over and over.

To me, the only unfortunate thing here is your inability to see why personal evidence is so flimsey. (And how someone who loves arguing so much cannot understand why argument from ingorance is silly.)

You're just telling me over and over how I don't understand and how you've explained, but I see no explination. Maybe I'm blind, or stupid, but I think it's far more likley that your explinations are just weak and so I've missed them simply for that reason. This isn't a personal thing, this has got nothing to do with my inability to see them, it is that personal evidence is flimsey.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Your Tom Cruise analogy is just bad, UC. Me saying that has got nothing to do with me being blind to something you're seeing.

Literally being able to see Tom Cruise is entirely different to how you may witness God.

Not really, because I feel just as strongly about God as I do that Tom Cruise was in Top Gun. I don't have a reason to question either one.

See, for me, I have deep concern for someong unable to understand the difference. Maybe you have a perceptual disorder of some kind? Like "the man who mistook his wife for his hat." Maybe, you're just being daft and hoping it strengthens your argument. Maybe genuinly you cannot see the wood through the trees. I don't know, UC, but I suspect there are many people who if they had the time and energy to read our little argument here would think you were simply insane.

Do I think you're insane? No. I do, however, think that you have no reason to belieive and are pouring bad arguments in thinking that with abuse of logic you can convince me you're being sensible.

Think of reading. The literal words, such as the ones in this posts, are factual. They are undeniably there. Whatever my post conjours up inside you, however, is a personal interpretation. Everyone undoubtably interprets differently.

But are they factual? Not necessarily. You might believe your words to be factual, when they might not be. Perhaps the facts you've based them off of are wrong. Perhaps you've mis-interpreted facts.

So no, reading isn't really applicable...it presents the same set of problems that a belief in God (or a belief in anything) does.

I meant the LITERAL words on the page. The undeniable words that are written here. You're still concentrating on interpretation. It is a fact that the words exist, was my point. So when we look at them (like the world around us) we can see they exist. To understand the words, however, we need interpretation.

Oh, and the way in which you snap from wanting to have a decent conversation to getting all pissy is unique as well. Perhaps you need to sort out just what it is you want before you continue posting in here? I've done nothing but attempt to explain myself and my reasoning to you. You apparently don't understand it. I feel confident in everything I've told you, and it's the best I can do to explain myself and my belief to you.

It's just obvious at this point...you just don't get it. And you're beginning to get frustrated because of that, and blaming me and my explanations instead of just realizing that you and I interpret things differently and that is the cause to this (and any, for that matter) misunderstanding.

My only fruistration is with your current argument strategy. What are you doing right now? Playing the victem? Where, amongst my short to the point posts, have I got "all pissy"?

I realise we interpret things differently. That's been my point for the last God-only-knows how many pages of posts. That doesn't mean your reasoning for interpretation is any more or lesss sound.

You've admitted reasons why you keep this going - be it OCD, be it an inability to deal with not understanding something, be it just responding to me - it seems that must be the case, because I don't know how much simpler I can put things to you that we're not going to see eye to eye.

So...what exactly are you trying to do?

That admittion was a kind of joke, of sorts. And this quote here is thuroughly funny thus.

I'm arguing with you (for whatever it is that motivates me) because I think that you are very, very, very wrong.

What exacly are you trying to do? I figured the same thing, but since you had to ask me, now I'm not so sure?

To me, the only unfortunate thing here is your inability to see why personal evidence is so flimsey. (And how someone who loves arguing so much cannot understand why argument from ingorance is silly.)

Personal evidence isn't flimsey. The problem is that you feel that anything that isn't outright scientifically proven is flimsey. Personal evidence is just that - personal evidence. You take it and form an opinion on it just like you do everything else.

There is no definition out there that says that personal evidence is flimsey - hell, this entire board is based off of personal evidence - our experiences with coasters, our likes and dislikes - all personal evidence.

The problem here is that you FEEL that personal evidence is flimsey (and as much as you want to argue otherwise, it is NOT a fact - it IS personal opinion) - and you're thus attempting to make everyone else follow that path.

Funny, because when someone tells you the fact that they experiance airtime on Stealth, you say they must be lying.

Do you understand WHY personal evidence is so useless in this kind of disgussion? Psychology expalins it better.

I went to that link, to your essay of a post. I'm sorry but on a skim, I couldn't find your personal evidence. Why you cannot just repeat yourself, or copy and paste, is beyond me. You expect me to read your 3000+ word essay AGAIN as some kind of a test?

Sorry, Joey, it doesn't work that way - no matter how much you feel it should or want it to.

Haha, exacly.

Oh, and the argument from ignorance being silly thing?

I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm merely stating the FACT that while I cannot prove God TO YOU, you cannot disprove him to me.

I'm not using that a reason to justify God - to do so would be an argument from ignorance - I'm stating it as a standalone fact.

Disprove Russle's teapot to me? Oh you can't? Or you don't want to? Either way, my point exactly.

Why should I disprove your imaginary friend? Seriously, why should I? You experience him, you should prove Him. How can someone who does not experience something prove it's non-existence? That makes, no sense. Everything should be assumed false until proven true. There should be licenses for arguing, and understanding that should be one of the tests. You are arguing from ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

If you say "well I don't care whether you believe in Him or not" then I'll ask, again, why you're here?

It may well be a fact, UC, but you brought it up originally as an argument against atheism. Which is why I jumped on it.

My personal experience is plenty for me to believe in God. I've tried to explain my personal experience to you, but as I've said multiple times, it's apparently not good enough for you.

Besides...we've already established that I cannot prove God exists in a physical sense - so if you think all my reasons are "flimsey"...why are you bothering to continue this conversation?

Do you think I'm going to say "Well done, Joey, by your constant whining, you've unlocked Enlightenment! Allow me to show you the Divine Proof of God's Existence!"?

I mean really, what exactly are you looking for from me?

Unless you either retype it, or copy and paste the specific place where you claim you wrote it, I won't be replying again. Because, this isn't going anywhere anymore. I've denounced imaginary evidence, yes, evidence I assume you'll give because whilst you're smart, you're not smarter than a lot of the theist's I've had nicer discussions with who've never been able to provide valid evidence. But if you think you can, please, prove me wrong. I haven't actually seen you post anything I'd consider to even be personal evidence.

Why do I care so much about the personal evidence you may provide that I will almost certainly denounce useless? *breath* Because I want to understand why when you look at the world you see meaning and intention and... God, and why I do not. Both of us cannot be right, as you proved out a few posts back, so who's wrong? Are we both wrong? Probably. I want to know why one of us is lacking something the other can so plainly see. That's interesting.

What am I looking for from you? Probably the same as you're looking for from me. Some shift in my understanding of the world, you, your beliefs. I'm not expecting to convert you (however nice that would be, I won't deny), I just want to shift the way you and I both think about things.

 

[furie]

As fun as this is - it's become a Joey and UC topic. I don't think either of you will quit.

Can you take it to PM's and just post a kind of highlighted update every so often?

If it wasn't just covering the same ground in ever increasing posts, I'd say let it stay - but as it is, I think it would be best if you kept it private until you have something to really add

 

[Ploddish]

A few ponderous ponderings, brought on by God's Debris:

Is God omnipotent?

Does God have free will?

 

[Stone Cold]

There is no reason to believe Russell's Teapot. Those who do believe in a higher power, DO have a reason.

If you DO believe in Russell's Teapot, and have a reason other than "Just because!" - well, then I'm happy to recognize your belief.

Why isn't there a reason to believe in Russell's teapot?

Even if you ignore the fact that most religious arguments inevitably boil down to "just because" I think there's a massive contradiction here, "just because" is most definitely a reason to believe, at any rate, it's definitely enough to show that belief of the teapot does exist, even if it's without reason - but couldn't that be described as having "faith" in the teapot?

However, there's a "better" reason to believe in the teapot: A shaky grasp of quantum physics leads me to believe that for the tiniest amounts of time, particles are arranging themselves in the shape of teapots (as well as whales, bowls of petunias etc etc etc ). That's my reason for believing in Russell's teapot: Pseudo-science; and who are you to tell me any different?

 

[Lain]

Actually, now I think about it, Thor's Hammer is pretty groovy, but it's not a patch on Poseidon's Mighty Trident.

Phwoooar!

 

[kimahri]

Posideon.

HA!

Zeus, he has Thunder... and lightining!


And it doesn't come from a hammer. it gomes from HIS HANDS!!

Zeus > Posideon.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Kim is right, electricity > water, didn't you learn anything from Pokemon Lain?

 

[Lain]

Zeus can bite me.

 

[Stone Cold]

Why isn't there a reason to believe in Russell's teapot?

Because I don't have one...? Which is why I don't believe in it...? Perhaps you mistook my post as representing a viewpoint other than my own?

I think the sentence following that made it abundantly clear that's what was going on.

Just because you don't have a reason to believe, it doesn't mean there aren't any reason for belief in the teapot.

In any case, I'm going to have to put this back onto you as I don't think you were quoted out of context. You did state that there is no reason to believe in Russell's teapot, which is not the same statement as "I personally do not believe in Russell's Teapot, but I can see why people might hold this as a legitimate belief". It was a directly contradictory sentence, which I thought really ought to be highlighted.

(Of course, that's contradicting the fundamental nature of the Teapot, which is mainly as a thought experiment anyway and thus it's impossible to have a reason for believing in its existence, but in which case no legitimate reason can be accepted anyway, but this is all academic already as we're clearly using the teapot as a metaphor for an established God)

Even if you ignore the fact that most religious arguments inevitably boil down to "just because" I think there's a massive contradiction here, "just because" is most definitely a reason to believe, at any rate, it's definitely enough to show that belief of the teapot does exist, even if it's without reason - but couldn't that be described as having "faith" in the teapot?

No, because having faith requires reason that the believer believes.

Why does faith require reason? I personally see faith to be a lack of reason (or, perhaps, of knowledge). You could quite obviously argue that everything happens for a reason, and thus all faith requires reason, but then faith is just a miniscule subset of *everything* and the argument is redundant. How specifically does reason become a non-trivial prerequisite for faith?

If you believe in the teapot, that's great. I recognize your belief - as long as it's one that isn't there for the sole purpose to mock other beliefs, and is based on something - be it factual or personal - that would cause you to believe in it.

Hey! Why isn't mocking another's beliefs a valid basis for your own beliefs? Parody and satire may not be the kindest of tools, but they can serve a purpose of holding up a mirror to people's own lives. This leads on to the relevant question of "why isn't it alright to mock people's beliefs?". Why is religion always seen as too holy to mock (pun not intended)? It's a personal choice, and even if it is deeply ingrained, it's still a choice, after all, you aren't born with a fixed religion.

Besides, even if it is cruel, believing in something for the sole purpose of mocking other beliefs is possibly no less valid a reason than any other factual or personal reason.

As for something boiling down to "just because"? Then EVERYTHING boils down to "just because," if you want to look at it that way, because there will come a point with everything - from facts to experiences - where, with enough questioning, one will not be able to explain it.

So in other words, you'll only accept my reasons for belief if I can 'prove' them? Because I could back them up wth personal anecdotes, but these pretty quickly fall back to "just because". You were saying earlier that "just because" isn't enough for you to respect my belief, but now you say everything eventually falls that way, so what is enough for my beliefs to gain acceptance?

You seem want some kind of middle ground. Not necessarily a concrete proof, but at least a reason, but how is "just because" really any different from "I just have this feeling about certain things" or the classic "I had a sort of vision one night, which you'll have to take my word for". Where's the defining difference between "just because" and a having a "UC-approved" belief.

However, there's a "better" reason to believe in the teapot: A shaky grasp of quantum physics leads me to believe that for the tiniest amounts of time, particles are arranging themselves in the shape of teapots (as well as whales, bowls of petunias etc etc etc ). That's my reason for believing in Russell's teapot: Pseudo-science; and who are you to tell me any different?

Who am I to tell you any different? What?

Did you actually read the part of my post you quoted? Perhaps you should read again:

If you DO believe in Russell's Teapot, and have a reason other than "Just because!" - well, then I'm happy to recognize your belief.

So there you have it. I'm no more able tell you you're belief is wrong than you are able to tell me mine is.

Excellent, so you seem to think that making up any old load of ill-conceived nonsense is grounds enough for a religious belief. I'm going to break with tradition and agree with you, I mean, have you read the Bible?

 

[nealbie]

^ One hell of a good lol-fest right there!

My compliments to the chef.

 

[SaiyanHajime]

Perhaps you'd do better to read some of what's been said here regarding my beliefs before simply tossing me aside as a run-of-the-mill Christian (which I am most certainly not)?

Maybe if you learnt to summarise, people would be more familiar with your beliefs. Or would that go against your argument strategy?

 

[kimahri]

This topic is incredably boring.

While I agree it's got bogged down in semantics and arguments over nitty gritty, there's been a lot of good stuff, very interesting. I think it's really rude to say that - you don't see UC coming into the "Games We Play" topic telling you it's boring. It's just that it's not interesting to you, but is to quite a few members

So I suggest if you're not interested, you just ignore the topic.

Furie

 

[Stone Cold]

Just because you don't have a reason to believe, it doesn't mean there aren't any reason for belief in the teapot.

Um, this is rather simple, SC.

I don't believe in the teapot. Thus, I don't see a reason to believe in the teapot.

Do I need to draw you pictures?

Well yes, and I'm glad you pluralised the word pictures, because if you use a thousand words per picture as the conversion rate, I estimate you'll need about 10 or so of these pictures.

Anyway, my counter example is that if God was to personally come down from the heavens and appear before me, then I'd believe in Him. That is a perfectly good reason for belief, which many people claim have happened to them. However, as it hasn't happened to me, I don't believe. But still acknowledge that it would be a reason for belief.

Why does faith require reason? I personally see faith to be a lack of reason (or, perhaps, of knowledge). You could quite obviously argue that everything happens for a reason, and thus all faith requires reason, but then faith is just a miniscule subset of *everything* and the argument is redundant. How specifically does reason become a non-trivial prerequisite for faith?

Because without reason, you get blind faith. Blind faith is believing something is there without any reasons - again, be they personal or whatever - behind them.

I suppose you could "call" this faith, but it's certainly not the definition I use.

By having a reason, you can give substance to the faith.

So how does this work then, apparently, "blind faith" has just been excluded from the umbrella definition of "faith" on the basis that it's unsupported by reasoning, but that's exactly what faith is! If all faith could be buttressed by reason, then it wouldn't be faith, it'd be fact. Isn't the fundamental nature of faith such that a leap in logic and reasoning is required, a so called "leap of faith" perhaps?

In fact, I view faith as something that can only be defended with a "just because". I mean sure a person can cite personal experience, but it's funny an example of personal experience has never been proven - i.e. no basis of reason for believing that these experiences are verifiable, and not, for example a dream or coincidence.

Again, I fail to see how any of this is so complicated - unless you're attempting to play semantics for the purposes of trying to prove me wrong...in which case, it's not working very well.

It's always about who's right and who's wrong with you. Has it never occured to you that I might be trying to get a deeper understanding or to question yours and my own beliefs? I'm not suggesting you'll convert me to Christianity any time soon, or vice versa, but it's possible that some smaller thought processes might change. You do note later on that you've held your beliefs steadfast and that people don't change them, as if that's something to be proud of. Perhaps acknowledging that your viewpoints do change over time is something to be more proud of.

[quote"SC"]Hey! Why isn't mocking another's beliefs a valid basis for your own beliefs? Parody and satire may not be the kindest of tools, but they can serve a purpose of holding up a mirror to people's own lives. This leads on to the relevant question of "why isn't it alright to mock people's beliefs?". Why is religion always seen as too holy to mock (pun not intended)? It's a personal choice, and even if it is deeply ingrained, it's still a choice, after all, you aren't born with a fixed religion.

Besides, even if it is cruel, believing in something for the sole purpose of mocking other beliefs is possibly no less valid a reason than any other factual or personal reason.

Because I personally don't see that as being moral - just as I don't have a belief that mocks your belief of the teapot!

Again, I think you're constantly forgetting that this is my viewpoint on the subject.

I don't think ANY beliefs should be mocked - and that exploiting a belief for the purpose of mocking is wrong, whether that's a "belief" in God or a "belief" in a teapot. [/quote]

Ok, this is getting out of hand. UC lecturing me on morals is bad enough, but if you think I'm going to allow you do to that when in the previous post you've basically threatened Joey with spreading around personal information against his wishes then you're quite wrong, you claim "you don't see a reason why those in the know should be forced to keep it a secret" well here's a reason, a moral code or some common courtesy and decency.

So in other words, you'll only accept my reasons for belief if I can 'prove' them? Because I could back them up wth personal anecdotes, but these pretty quickly fall back to "just because". You were saying earlier that "just because" isn't enough for you to respect my belief, but now you say everything eventually falls that way, so what is enough for my beliefs to gain acceptance?

No, I'm saying that if you want to boil down to it, EVERYTHING becomes a "just because" argument, because there comes a point where logic and science fail to explain everything.

However, that doesn't mean that you can't observe things and interpret them as they are to a point.

Yeah, I got that the first time you said it. What you've not done is said how you manage to accept beliefs that aren't "just because" beliefs, when eventually all of them are (by your own admission).

You can tell me that my belief in God can't possibly be true because all of my arguments are "just because" - and I can turn around and ask the very questions that science has yet to explain, and state that while this doesn't necessarily prove God - it certainly demonstrates that the possibility for him to exist, and thus a basis of faith on my part, is there.

Whoa, alarm bells are ringing loud here UC. Whilst there might be legitimate reasons to believe in God. I think we can both agree that the inability of science to answer every question is not reason enough on it's own to believe in God. The mere possibility of him existing because science hasn't conclusively closed the door on him is pretty much a "just because" reason; it's effectively saying "He could exist, therefore He does" and it's a pretty poor "basis of faith" (although it might be a necessary part of a wider set of reasons, but it strikes me a not so much a reason for belief, but a situation that must be fulfilled in order for belief to occur).

However, this is little more than semantics (oddly enough, exactly the kinds of things people try and fight religion with...).

"Just because" isn't a basis for belief, because it's more of a semantics approach to the entire situation. It really only gets applied with Atheists attempt to use generalizations to dump on religion. Reasons, however, that one has and believe demonstrate something to them, forms the basis for faith.

So if you really wanted to play semantics, you could argue "just because" - in which case, we're back to square one, as neither side will have shown the other anything to demonstrate them wrong.

I prefer to stick with the personal reasons I have in my faith, and to explain my viewpoint to others if they ask - hence what I'm doing for you.

You seem want some kind of middle ground. Not necessarily a concrete proof, but at least a reason, but how is "just because" really any different from "I just have this feeling about certain things" or the classic "I had a sort of vision one night, which you'll have to take my word for". Where's the defining difference between "just because" and a having a "UC-approved" belief.

The problem is that you interpret a wide range of things to mean "just because," whether it's for the sake of your argument or because you really do have such broad generalizations for definitions...

Well which is it, semantics or broad generalised definitions? Place your bets now people, no, not you Pascal, you spineless weasel </poor>

"I have a feeling for" is different than "just because." "Just because" implies that the person, for the hell of it and for no other reason, believes something. "I have a feeling that..." implies that due to an event, the person has personal feelings that grant them their faith.

It's not that I'm looking for a middle ground at all, SC - it's that you're trying to apply what are apparently your incredibly broad generalizations to my specific core of beliefs on what constitutes faith. You need to stop generalizing and then making accusations upon me as a result of your incorrect generalizations.

You now seem to be saying that "just because" constitutes pretty much the same thought processes as me waking up tomorrow and going "hmmm, it's May 1st, I think I'll become a Muslim because they both begin with the letter M, and whilst 'Athiesm April' was a good laugh, I'm ready for a change". I don't think that many people choose religion "for the hell of it" (I know you didn't intend that pun, but I did!) nearly all people have a few reasons for their beliefs (or lack thereof) even if they are theologically quite basic.

So, my question is this: If "just because" reasons are strictly "reasons with no thought behind them" then surely so few people are going to hold these beliefs it's a trivial point to say you don't respect "just because" beliefs?

So as such, as long as someone has valid reasoning for their belief - and aren't just using it to take advantage of, harm, or mock others - you can believe whatever the hell you want.

Religious extremism is something I personally struggle with, because while I don't agree with it - I do understand that those people feel strongly about what they do and feel that it is right. As such, I'm torn between a difficult choice of standing up for their beliefs - as extremists ARE very religious - and what I feel is a total lack of morality in the way they express those religious beliefs.

But isn't exteremism taking advantage of, and harming others. You seemed quite clear on this point, then suddenly backed down a bit, because "extremists are very religious", as if that gave them a special right to assert their beliefs. Religion is still a belief, and no matter how staunchly it is held, the act of terrorism is still an act of terrorism, and moreover, terrorism committed by athiests is unlikely to be any less fervent given the nature of committing such an act. Thus, it seems poor form to defend terrorism on the basis that "they really believed". Timothy Mcveigh's crime was not based on religion, but a pathological desire to teach the US government a lesson, so surely this is also a case of someone "standing up for his beliefs"?

Oh, and as for the Bible...are you even aware of what I believe? I've stated numerous times that I think the Bible is a collection of stories meant to be taken far more for their meanings and messages than for their literal interpretations.

Perhaps you'd do better to read some of what's been said here regarding my beliefs before simply tossing me aside as a run-of-the-mill Christian (which I am most certainly not)?

It was a joke. To reiterate; a joke! And I'm not talking about the bible, but my comment on the bible. Which was a joke...

About a joke of a book...

Do you see how this works yet? I sometimes make jokes about things. It's not rocket science. Or to be taken seriously.






Just like the Bible.

 

[Ormerod]

I think Evolution sounds a bit more realistic to me. My opinion would be that Religions are based on fear and power and were designed to keep people in such an order. :shock:

 

[Anonymous]

All hail the flying Spaghetti monster!!