Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by James R, Jul 23, 2015.
If so, that would be historically ignorant.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Not from the ''atheist'' perspective.
A mechanic does not need to inoke the mind that created the car in order to know everything about the car itself.
Yes but unlike the theisist a mechanic deals with a reality we can touch taste and feel, and the mechanic has the sence to throw away something that is beyond repair to have it recycled and made into something tangible and useful.
Why unlike the theist?
Because, as has been hashed out over more than one thread, you have produced nothing in the way of theist evidence that can be touched or tasted.
I can literally hand you a hose clamp. Can you literally hand me God's grace? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Sorry Jan I overlooked providing a reply in truth I forgot.
Dave answered very well.
You could see the difference if you thought a little.
I understand as you are seeming always in a position of defence your ability to take on what others point out may be difficult so perhaps take more time to understand my point.
You may not be interested in my views and thats ok.
What I'm confused by in the real world sense of it, not the theoretical, is that those who rely on faith or belief in god etc etc do well in society as in their 'knowledge' or how it's attained is not a stumbling block. It does not stigmatize or ostracize them, keep them from employment, relationships or influence in society etc etc. So i always wonder, how is that? what does that say about nature or the universe we believe is so logical but fails miserably on certain fronts? since that if they are so 'illogical', then why are they not a disoriented mass of helpless individuals spontaneously combusting or imploding or just total prey? considering logical theoretical assumption of cause and effect?
Interesting though that those who believe in god can be even more clever (not truthful which is the assumption of logic here) and deceptive as well as the predators, not prey due to their 'illogic'. It's like saying someone who confuses you or is not making logical sense or truthful, can't be doing that on purpose or for an agenda. Of course, that agenda cannot always be known or supposed, so the only way to combat it is to note and evaluate the illogical thinking which is assumed at face value that it is due to 'ignorance' or 'stupidity' when it is not so in all cases. The business of 'god' just may be how they are trying to make others adjust to their neural pathways and roundabout, convoluted, distorted, deceptive thinking to eliminate a certain sect of people they are in competition with all the while, and eventually arrive at the conclusion for self preservation just the same. Now how did they do that? if they are so illogical, so helpless, so ignorant? so naive? they aren't all naive or stupid, maybe corrupt or degraded in their thinking. Essentially arguing against nature/laws of universe in how inefficient it can be and you can see that in nature and even evolution. That's hallowed ground, much like god/diety to some scientists that their idea the universe is not some infallible perfectly beautiful and logical system. This is why they like to separate the two so as to keep the laws of the universe pristine in their mind and/or delusional thinking/beliefs.
Another aspect I always found to be disingenuous and rather bizarre too is the black/white idea that all problems in society is due to stupidity, ignorance or lack of logic. Most problems can be fixed if combined with sincerity (if ignorance is really the issue) which is the root/start of logic, btw.
Since when? Most serious and horrendous root problems are caused by intentional obfuscation, deception, untruthfulness etc. For example, people don't call liars, con-artists, gossips/rumor starters, deceivers etc stupid, morons, dummies etc now do they? since and even if their answer, information, and/or actions is incorrect and wrong?? think about it? aka CORRUPTION" is caused by use of contrived and intentional misinformation, and general chaos or illogical means/actions for a set logical agenda (maybe not the best logic but that is irrevelant to logic) with illogical mayhem or collateral damage/expense as a result to other systems. It's telling of the people who comprise a society that the biggest elephant in the room is ignored or given a pass, when they are the ones who cause most of the illogical destruction or ruse because of their damn selfishness who don't care they are misleading or influencing others illogically and religion and/or belief in gods/dieties is just a facet or finger of that in society as in not the only problem. It's pervasive throughout. Remember, nature uses or allows the use of lack of logic or chaos or perversion for a purpose. Hypocritical, isn't it?
illogical/insane universe/nature or just inept/lacking as in is it's problem to be causing people to believe in god/gods, if it's so darn logical? I don't just question people, i question the root of what they are and where they come from and they are the product of this universe that scientists keep adamantly saying religiously that it's totally logical and it is obviously NOT. There is nothing logical about any or most of the universal laws, it just is. Logic is finding out or taking note of the curveballs and/or path it's taking (illumination, not mystery), that is all.
At best, religious faith may not get in the way of seeking knowledge. That's at its BEST. At its worst, yes, it can get in the way . . . big time. And it can be used to keep others from seeking knowledge. It can never help.
how did it never help? before christianity took a certain hold, the romans (for example) were persecuting christians but that's not the only problem because the romans and the society itself was built on power and amoral. colosseum, anyone? Religion that has morals and compassion in it's doctrines does have an influence on society for the better in some ways. Otherwise, is a society that's built only on logic and seeking of knowledge the only basis for a good one?? if that's the case, that's hell on earth too, just as well. That society could be almost completely immoral or amoral.
"If you need the threat of eternal torture to be a good person, you're not a good person."
That's really not the practical point because you can't count on others to be a good person without deterrants which is why we have ethical social mores, laws, judicial system, jails, prisons, governments etc. It's about protection of yourself not just depending on the whims of another so religion has played a crucial role in this, albeit very imperfectly.
So because you claim this theism is false?
While you're at it can you hand me a blue? (That's a rhetorical question.)
If you are a psychopath, but because you don't want to be incarcerated in prison for the rest of your life, thereby ceaseing your murderous activity because of the threat. Can you see how advantagious that could be for everyone?
It may be enough of a deterant to facilitate a complete change of heart for you.
There is no claim that theism is false.
The assertion is that, lacking objective evidence, theism is faith-based.
I can show you (and seven billion other people) blue.
No need to take it on faith.
Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?
I'll say 'no'.
I don't see faith as being a source of information. Nor does faith justify belief in whatever information we might have. So I don't think that faith is a 'path to knowledge' at all.
But... having said that, I do think that faith is a psychological tendency (not only in humans, but in all sentient life) that's necessary for living in the real world.
We have faith in the existence and universal applicability of what we conceive of as 'laws of physics'. We have faith in logic and mathematics. Every time we board an airplane we are trusting our lives to that kind of faith.
On a more common-sensical level, we have faith every time we take a step that the law of gravity hasn't suddenly been repealed.
The way I see it, 'faith' is confidence and trust in the truth of things that remain logically and factually uncertain. We see some varieties of religion (the Protestant Christians particularly) elevating that to be the center of their whole system. I tend to think that this kind of religiosity abuses the idea of faith.
But faith is necessary and is typically present everywhere else in real life as well, even in science and mathematics. Basically, faith is what gives us our ability to live our lives in conditions of uncertainty. (Which is the human condition.) It's what pertains when we can't be absolutely sure, when all of the questions that arise haven't been satisfactorily answered, but we plow ahead anyway and trust our lives to the incomplete and fallible beliefs that we do have.
From Paddoboy Post #7
I know 4-5 atheists, none of whom I would describe as scum. The ones I know (including myself) have better codes of ethics than most of the religious folks I know.
I wonder how many atheists you know personally. I doubt that they are typical atheists.
I wonder if you are referring to Stalin, Mao, & other dictatorial rulers. I am not sure they are typical atheists.
I suspect that some (many/most?) dictatorial rulers who claim to be atheists are interested in down playing any possible opposition to their sovereignty & are unlike what might be called intellectual atheists.
BTW: I started on the road to atheism due to having a very strong bond with my father. I was born when he was almost 50 & semi-retired. He spent more time with me than most fathers spend interacting with their sons.
I considered the request that Abraham kill his son to be demonic rather than the request of a god worthy of worship. The resulting arguments with my Sunday school teacher convinced me that Christianity & Judaism were seriously flawed teachings.
Later the story of Job reinforced that view of Christianity & Judaism. God mistreated his most faithful follower & killed his family to show that Job’s faith was unshakable & win an argument with Satan.
Giving Job a new family did nothing for the family god killed. This suggests an interesting Old Testament view of family as the property of the patriarch rather than as human beings.
From Timojin Post #8
Reason, the basis of science & mathematics, is subjective when compared to faith?
BTW: At least Hitler & Stain did not slaughter due to religious beliefs. Note the Inquisitions (particularly the Spanish one) & the Salem Witch trials.
Religious folks on both sides of almost all wars pray to some god (or gods) & claim that he/she/they are on the side of the ones praying.
Does that excuse it?
You don't just know everything, apparently. Your not just safe, but you can save so there might be absolute knowledge in some sense of the word.
Why is it faith-based?
Why do I need faith to believe in God?
But could you hand a ''blue'' to me (note that I'm not talking about blue things).
Separate names with a comma.