On faith

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Magical Realist, Jun 22, 2016.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,359
    WTF? I know you haven't asked me to become a theist, nor I you to become an atheist. I have asked questions, just as you have. I have answered yours and now you are evading mine? Why? What is it about asking you in what (your or any) faith resides that irks you so? You have stated quite clearly that it is not a matter of evidence... so what is it? Explain to me, so that I can improve my understanding. All you're doing at the moment with your evasive and unhelpful attitude is basically saying "It's not what you thought it is, it's different, but that's all I'm telling you!"
    This is indeed a thread where personal views close (or did you really mean closed?) to the heart are being discussed. Which is why I find it surprising that you are not willing to actually discuss them. I have raised some questions and you are doing nothing but evading them. Are you here to discuss or not, or simply to preach?
    You can't seem to help me at all in any way. This thread is about faith, is it not? And yet you seem unwilling / unable to express to anyone on what basis your faith, or indeed any such faith, is founded.
    So let me ask again, with some other questions as well that your latest post has thrown up:
    - What is it about such faith that makes it beyond scrutiny?
    - Why are you not able to explain what your faith is founded upon, if not evidence of the type in the examples of faith you claimed are different to the faith in question?
    - Why are you being so evasive? Do you think I am asking as some sort of attack on your position? I am not. I am trying to understand what leads some people to have such faith while others lack it. Yet your defensive attitude is both unhelpeful and unwarranted.
    - If you don't intend to discuss, why are you here?
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    You have not shown any sign of improving your understanding, because you refuse to accept others point of view, if not supported by objectivity. Therein lies your problem with issues regarding theism etc. Faith is not science, It need not have any empirical evidence. It is also not as simple that I have faith in X because of this and that, and you do not have faith in X because of this and that. Improve your understanding by learning this simple aspect, then you will not ask questions about others faiths.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,134
    Faith is not science, but it is part of it. Theism and thesis are synonymous. Faith in nature, and science (and how) create contentment, and knowledge.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Seattle said:
    Is calling yourself The God blasphemous?

    Its blasphemous accordin to my beliefs... for 1.!!!
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Thank you for letting us know.

    • • •​

    Um ... okay. If you say so. Sure. Whatever.

    • • •​

    General note: What, seriously? That's it? This is as smart as people can be about religion around here?

    Whatever, then. It would be disappointing, but there really is some futility about the proposition that anyone should put more effort into giving a damn about such stupid and lazy posts than the posters put into their exhibitions of inadequacy.

    I think it rather quite sad to consider how many people would fail to qualify if we set "having a clue" or "being capable of actually finding and getting a clue" as a minimum bar for participation.
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  9. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    You welcome.!!!
    I agree... but i thank its "high time" that you set minimum standards for participation... an mayb some ponts an flags sent to someones PM box woud be a good motivator... eh.!!!
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,359
    Again I'm going to say: WTF??
    What understanding is there to improve when you blatantly refuse to provide anything to understand, other than your consistent evasion of answering the questions posed? How can I refuse to accept your point of view when all you have provided is akin to "it's not the same!"? But then it's not about accepting others' points of view but of simply understanding them... so here I wait for you to provide something that will aid in that understanding, 'cos at present you have provided nothing about what your faith is based on, just what you think it is not based on.

    So you have faith but you can not explain why? Is that it? You do not know why you have faith? Is that the conclusion we should reach from your defensive evasion?
    But I personally do not agree with you. It is as simple as you having faith because of X and/or Y. The issue is whether you know what X or Y is, but you have faith as a result of something. Everything in this universe appears to be the result of something. Do you think your faith is different? If so, why?
    The only aspect you are proposing is that you don't know, can't say, or won't say. Is that what I need to learn, that you will simply continue to evade?
    This thread is about faith - so are you seriously saying you are here to effectively shut down discussion of people's faith, by saying that it is outside the remit of discussion? That we shouldn't ask questions of it?
    Seriously?
    Well, I'm sure you know where the exit door is.


    So, is there any other theist here who will try to give a genuine response to the questions asked, and won't simply try to evade them?
    - What is your faith (in God) based upon, if anything?
    - What is it you think you have that those without such faith lack?

    This isn't an attempt to convert, to seek conversion, to belittle, to ridicule etc. These are serious questions posed in the spirit of trying to understand. I see people with faith and I wonder what it is they have that I lack, or perhaps what I have that they don't that stops me from having such.

    Is there any theist who is actually willing to offer a helpful response, or does all this thread have theists who wish to engage in evasion and refusal to have their faith examined?
     
  11. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902

    I don't think that Dave ever suggested that the existence of God and the existence of unicorns are of equal importance to Jan. The point is the idea that God being exceedingly important in Jan's psychology doesn't mean that the question of God's objective existence somehow becomes irrelevant or misconceived. Just because a certain kind of theist insists that he/she believes so strongly in God that the question of God's existence never arises in their lives, isn't itself an argument for the existence of God. It isn't an argument that the question of God's existence is misconceived. It's equally possible to believe unquestioningly in the existence of delusions (unicorns, let's say). Schizophrenics do it all the time.

    You were insisting that belief in God is a totally different kind of thing than belief in unicorns. Dave essentially replied that is probably subjectively true in the believer's own mind if 'God' plays an outsize role in that individual's psychology, and not so much if it doesn't.

    Unfortunately Jan refuses to reveal them. Jan definitely has a personal theology with definite views about the nature and content of 'scripture', theistic universalism and about God having some kind of presence within the self. Jan's quoted repeatedly from Swami Prabhupada's translations of the Gita and some of the Upanishads. I've speculated that Jan is a devotee of ISKCON and have asked repeatedly what Jan's beliefs are, what religious teachings Jan has received and what tradition Jan ascribes to. (I'm not suggesting any criticism of ISKCON in any of that, I'm just trying to understand Jan's theological assumptions better.)

    Jan just protests that his/her beliefs are irrelevant in these discussions while insisting that his/her mysterious unstated theistic beliefs make him/her a far greater authority on religion than a non-theist could ever be. (Too bad for religious non-theists, I guess. I'm sensitive to that since I have some Buddhist tendencies. Jan seems to deny that religious non-theists can even exist.)

    Jan's being a theist making him/her an authority on religious matters might be plausible if Jan's God actually exists, and if having some kind of relationship with this God means having a relationship with something truly divine. But not so much if Jan's God is just a fantasy and an illusion. That once again introduces the existence question which we are told is only of interest to atheists.

    I just explained Dave's point to you. (None of this is tremendously difficult.) He's never "required" that Jan believe or behave differently. How could he possibly do that? All Dave can do is post his own ideas on the board. If he disagrees with Jan, there's no harm in his saying so, especially if his points are well taken. (And they often are.) Jan certainly disagrees with the rest of us and isn't shy about saying it.

    Of course not. Nobody has suggested that it would. (Nor am I convinced that Jan is perpetually wrong.)

    Stop it Tiassa.

    You said it yourself right up above: "In critiquing Jan Ardena, one should attend to Jan Ardena's beliefs". The problem is that Jan won't reveal Jan Ardena's beliefs and none of us are telepaths. So Dave and the rest of us only do what's possible to do, we attend to Jan Ardena's words, to what's been written here on Sciforums. (Whether they are rhetorical and are just posted to create consternation among the atheists, or emerge from a profound and consistent belief system, we can't really know.)

    So Dave is trying to argue with the ideas that have been expressed. That's how people behave in philosophy of religion and in religious studies classrooms. I'm impressed by Dave's self-control and think that he's behaving very well. His maturity and intelligence in the face of your unjustified provocations has made me respect him all the more. He's a good guy and I don't believe that he deserves the abuse you are giving him. He's an asset to Sciforums.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2016
    DaveC426913 and cluelusshusbund like this.
  12. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    So, you are attempting to gain upper hand by linking faith in God with worldly objectivity. You fail to understand that grounds for faith in God cannot be assessed the way you are expecting. Its as simple as that. For me my mother is special, I have faith in her however frail she may be, but for you she is just another lady. There need not be any justification for love and faith between me and her and the same holds good between a theist and the God.

    But you won't understand. You are too obsessed with 2+2 = 4, that nothing else appeals you.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2016
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    Standards for this thread? Really. I hadn't been here (until the last few days) for probably a year. The "debate" between Jan and Sarkas, in one form or another, has been going on for a least that long with nothing new added. I offer that it's a bit unusual for someone calling himself "The God" to not see that as blasphemous and that's what you take exception with?
     
  14. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    No, it is not. Pl have a look at what blasphemy means. Straw man attempt by those who are raising this?

    It is blasphemy to call the god as spaghetti monster or magical pixie.
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    This and That

    Stop it, Yazata.

    Stop it, Yazata.

    Stop it, Yazata.

    The English language is a good thing, and I don't think it deserves the abuse you are giving it.

    Logic is a good thing, and I don't think it deserves the abuse you are giving it.

    I reject your (yet another) straw man:

    I don't think that Dave ever suggested that the existence of God and the existence of unicorns are of equal importance to Jan.

    That's beside the point. See, the thing that bothers me is that you can't possibly be this stupid, Yazata. The problem is that what Jan thinks is irrelevant to Dave's assessment of what Jan thinks.

    The point is the idea that God being exceedingly important in Jan's psychology doesn't mean that the question of God's objective existence somehow becomes irrelevant or misconceived. Just because a certain kind of theist insists that he/she believes so strongly in God that the question of God's existence never arises in their lives, isn't itself an argument for the existence of God. It isn't an argument that the question of God's existence is misconceived. It's equally possible to believe unquestioningly in the existence of delusions (unicorns, let's say). Schizophrenics do it all the time.

    All that effort because a bunch of supremacists are too proud to admit that they aren't smart enough to comprehend the basic idea of function.

    You can't even attend what God is and does in believers' lives because you don't care. The whole point is to say stupid, uneducated things in order to denigrate believers and their beliefs, and when it comes to what they actually believe, we already know from Dave that it doesn't matter to him what they believe.

    That's what you call a good guy, Yazata?

    That kind of dishonesty is what you call an asset?

    Stop it, Yazata.

    Stop this disgusting, stupid, fallacious, dishonest behavior.

    Stop advocating dishonesty and bigotry.

    Stop it, Yazata.

    • • •​

    (sigh)

    Actually, what I took exception to was the stupid, uneducated, lazy, worse than useless↑ excuse for an answer.

    Naturally, a brilliant person such as yourself overlooked that detail.

    So, seriously, you can't put in enough effort to name one applicable standard? Don't get me wrong, I get it; there's no point in offering up one because the other will just say you're wrong. We see a lot of that around here.

    Still, though, come on, dude. Think of it this way: If the "smart" people can't be bothered to conduct themselves as if they're "smart", then I don't believe they're the "smart" people.

    Standards? Yeah, they're pretty low in the Religion subforum. When it comes to religious people, we know why. When it comes to the petty, arrogant, allegedly "smart" people who think they know better than to have religion, yeah, I admit it's either funny or exasperating, depending on whether one feels cruel enough to laugh at disability.

    But, really, the whole point of this new intellectualism is to avoid any need to lift a thoughtful finger. It really is disappointing.
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    I don't really understand this "staff member" thing. When you post "Stop it, stop it, stop it Yazata" is this an admonishment as a staff member? In other words, if Yazata doesn't Stop he will be banned or is this just your opinion and post as a regular member of this forum?

    It's a bit confusing to me (as a smart member). It seems that you are a bit out of control if this is a post in your official capacity. I haven't even been deeply involved in this thread. I just made a comment or two and I don't understand why you are even addressing anything that I've said.

    It's not worth posting to question someone with the name The God to bring up blasphemy?

    I haven't even read all of the long winded posts between Sarkus and Jan (this time). I know that trying to have a logical conversation with Jan in general and in the past has been difficult and Jan has seemed in my opinion to be rather disingenuous with his responses.

    It has been like pulling teeth in the past to get him to clarify what is on his mind and what his points are on whatever the subject matter was.

    I just don't understand why a moderator/staff member is involved here or even what a staff member means?
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Observation would reveal that as a moderator I type in a green, sans serif font, in order to distinguish between the roles.

    The thing with telling Yazata is to make a point about the nature of his argument. Technically, these are really easy, simple points of discussion, what baseball describes as cans of corn. Yet time and again people botch them up, and quite literally because they refuse to put any damn thought into what they are saying.

    So―

    ―I would like your explanation of something, as a smart member. However, as you presented your smartness in regards to a certain point, let me again reiterate that straightforward observation would show the bit about green and black type; it's pretty obvious.

    However, here's the thing:

    • If I intend to assess your behavior, should I assess your behavior according to what it means to you, or should I write that meaning for you?

    Practical example: Does the first paragraph of your post inquire about an issue you would like clarified, or are you pretending to not know in order to further distract from a very basic point because it makes anti-religious argumentation that much easier for being free from paying attention to reality? I mean, let's face it, if I really want to be political about the question, yeah, the green sans serif type really is something of a tell.​

    Are you able to tell me why the answer should be that what you think about what you do and believe is irrelevant to assessing what you do and believe?

    So, if I make the point that I inquired about the particular aspect, the other skipped out on it, and explicitly acknowledges that the critique of a person's beliefs and behavior has nothing to do with that person ... can you, as a smart person, please tell me why the response to this point, which is supported with evidence, is, "Stop it Tiassa"?

    What am I supposed to stop? Am I supposed to stop challenging Dave's "academic" exclusion? Am I supposed to stop giving examples of the problem?

    What do I want Yazata to stop? I want him to stop moralizing for the sake of a straw man. Watching these so-called smart people pile up the fallacies? That's the other thing: Seriously, let's leave my mod hat out of it.

    I just can't believe how desperate people are to protect this basic fallacy from scrutiny.

    Yeah ... and?

    It's pretty well established, over the course of years―you know, one of those basic observation things―that our neighbor pretty much doesn't ever make sense.

    But ... okay, look, so we both know the "smart" people we're talking about are allegedly atheistic. Now, here's the thing about "atheism" in the societal discourse: There is a difference between this abstract nothingness that many atheists, including our neighbor DaveC, claim and the atheism that presents itself in the discourse. And here's the thing about that discourse version: These atheists let the lowest intellectual elements of religious expression in society define religion; then they set out to pick fights with these low intellectual elements; and then they somehow manage to lose those fights. Honestly, it's fucking embarrassing. The vicarious agony of watching these pretentious advocates basically wallow in the validation of religious people's least educated superstitions about atheists and infidels is the sort of thing that really ought to leave an indelible impression about the folly of relying on a pretense of rational argument while skipping out thereupon. The result is something between the tortoise and hare, to the one, and the occasional reminder, to the other, why it is unwise to administer one's own body piercings.

    Nobody says we have to engage Jan Ardena, or any other religious person around here. I suppose I can say the same about, say, Dave or Yazata. But I would also hope that's something they would never share in common with certain others.

    In the big picture it comes down to one asserting, "I am rational; therefore I am free to be irrational."

    More proximally and particularly, it comes down to not really having an excuse to say uninformed things for the sake of belittling others. Solipsistic pedantry is more revealing than indicting; nihilism is hardly a proper foundation for rational exploration of anything.

    What is actually really annoying and offensive is how stupid it seems some smart people apparently need to pretend to be in order to justify themselves.

    Let's try it this way: "Is it any less meaningful to say I am 'without unicorns'?" The proper answer is to wonder how it is that one isn't smart enough to figure that answer for himself.

    A more sarcastic answer would be to say, "I don't know, to what degree are a car and a toothpick, functionally speaking, the same?"

    "Is it any less meaningful to say I am 'without unicorns'?" is, in its context, a question derived from an extraordinary proposition; it actually requires support.

    A basic perusal of the existing record would establish differences 'twixt unicorn and monotheistic godhead sufficient to preclude any functional comparison. I find it rather an extraordinary proposition that our neighbor is not smart enough to figure that out.

    In the end, everything works out a lot better if smart people actually act like they're smart, instead of saying, "Well, I'm smart so I deserve to act like the stupid people." Such jealousy is itself dysfunctional.

    And this bit where others pretend to be shocked or confused or concerned because some become annoyed at deliberately annoying behavior is older than Sciforums itself, so, yeah, look: It's a basic enough point to observe, so, yes, when people are willing to put this much effort into protecting willful invalidation from any manner of decent scrutiny, and especially while trying to call it "academic" behavior, the resulting spectacle does kind of stand out.

    And why? Because as smart people, what they really want is petty satisfaction?

    They're not doing anyone any good.
     
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    OK, Tiassa, I get that you are on a rant now.

    It's not necessary to post a page where a few words would do.

    Regarding you posting in green. OK, thanks. I didn't know that. How would I know that? I haven't seen that.

    I get that you are offended (it seems) that some are comparing God and Unicorns. That's your right I suppose but I'd say it would be better if you got over it.

    Why lecture Dave about his beliefs when you don't like it when Dave does that. Why try to tell Dave or anyone else how they should argue a point. Just deal with the point at hand and don't worry about Dave would be how I would approach it.

    Isn't that kind of how it has to work on a public forum? You kind of have to deal with everyone's arguments and not tell them how they are supposed to argue.

    In this case you (I"m guessing) are religious and find it offensive that one would compare God and Unicorns in any manner. If that's the way Dave sees it however that's the way he sees it.

    You and Jan are on the same page (if that's possible) and Dave isn't ever going to be on that page so why worry about the way that he argues and just deal with the argument itself.

    That's all that anyone can do on these forums isn't it? I'm not actually suggesting that you not do what you're doing because you can do whatever you want to do. What kind of discussion could we have if I spent all my time interrupting your argument to tell you how your are supposed to argue?

    It's just not productive is it?
     
  19. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I think you're being harsh.

    I wrote a response to you a while back, and you didn't reply.
    Either it was not worthy of a response, or you simply overlooked it.
    Maybe you can explain what you find nonsensical about my responses .

    I'm glad to see you're taking a stance against tactics of what you term smart people.

    I battle with that virtually every time I post . I don't think atheists have a real angle on theism and theists, so they vehemently defend their position.

    It seems they are not content with simply being 'without God. They seem to feel the need suppress theism, trying to block off all entrances.

    Atheos means without God (gods)
    Theo's means God (god's).
    Not my definition.

    In fairly recent times, the quality of existence' has been added. So now we scale back the definitions to mean believe in, or not, the mere existence of God.

    Why?

    Because some people demand that.
    Who are these people who demand evidence of Gods existence?

    People who are without God.
    What are people without God , termed as? Atheists.

    Now bear in mind that Theos does not translate as with God, only 'God'.

    Some people are without certain functions. Meaning without prior experience, they can only give a vague description of what it would like to have those functions. Could it be that being without God is no different than lacking any other function?

    Sarkus brought up the issue of me acting superior to atheists, because I am theist.
    Is Sarkus saying that people who lack functions are somehow inferior?

    Existence of God is ultimately a really pointless debate, because the theist understands that ultimately, God IS what existence is. Ultimately the theist will conclude that there is nothing but God.

    The atheist affirms that God does not exist, or there is no evidence that confirms the existence of God, so he cannot accept God.

    All we have here are two different states of mind. God simply IS, and, there is no god (as far as I know).

    Doesn't this stand up to the original meanings of theism and atheism? Isn't that just the way things are?

    All I'm suggesting is let's look beyond the mere existence of God, at least for this thread, for the purpose of discussing faith.

    Jan.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2016
  20. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Tiassa and Jan have almost screwed up this thread by bringing this issue of smartness. I do not think being theist or atheist is a matter of smartness. There are extremely intelligent people, scientists, players etc who are theists, and I am sure there are no dearth of intelligent rationalists who are atheists.

    In any such argument the atheist is bound to ask the simple most question about the basis of theist's faith in God. He doess not understand it because he rationalizes it and thats why he is an atheist. The problem comes when he does not accept the simple answer that this faith is not open to such scrutiny; from rationalistic point of view this answer appears absurd and foolish, so he starts acting smart like offering comparison with unicorns or dogs, and makes a mockery of himself.
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,359
    Are you saying that faith in God is linked wholly with the subjective? If so then okay, we're getting somewhere in you helping me understand your position.
    It does, however, raise other questions: from where do your subjective thoughts/feelings on the matter arise, for example?
    Stop trying to second-guess my expectations! You are using that as an excuse to evade the question when you have no idea whatsoever what I am expecting. How can I have any expectations when you blatantly refuse to answer other than to give excuses and give vague notions about what it is not, rather than what it is?
    Sure, certain things will make more sense to me than others, and what you give as an actual answer, should you ever deign to give one, might not be something I agree with from my perspective, nor even comprehend. But at least I will then have that understanding of what you think, of the way you think, of what you consider your grounds of faith in God to be.
    You should trust that this is a genuine appeal for information as to how the other side work, so to speak, rather than simply get defensive and close up shop.
    She may be just another lady to me, but if I wanted to understand why you had faith in her you could begin to explain, perhaps, that there is a genetic bond (if indeed there is as many call people mother without such - England adopted people), and I might reply that many people don't have such faith in those they share genes with... And so we move on to what may lie beneath the faith if not genetics. And you go on to matters of your mother always being there for you, never letting you down, the demonstrable unconditional love etc. And so the discussion could progress.
    Note, at no time does my view of your mother need come into it, for it is not relevant, it is about you and your views and your explanation of them. If I can relate them to my own experiences then I can gain an understanding. If I can't relate then then I will not be able to gain as deep an understanding, but perhaps some intellectual understanding if not agreement.
    I do not think people do things for no reason. I think there is always justification, whether we are consciously aware of it or not. I felt the same way about my mother as you do of yours, but I assure you there was justification: an wealth of experience, both conscious and subconscious.
    How do you know if you won't try?
    Are you suggesting that 2+2 does not equal 4?
     
  22. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Sarkus is repeating a question about this basis of faith in God, he is further inquiring what is that which he does not have which theists have.

    My answer to him is that he lacks the ability to accept the faith (in God) without empirical evidence. Or I can say that he has over developed objectivity, which deters him from accepting things without basis. No atheist will ever accept any answer involving reasons and logic, because they will all appear fragile from a rationalist point of view with easy trappings and counters.
     
  23. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    My reference to ''smart people'' was in a sense, a disaproval of the term.
    This idea of atheists being smart, and theists being dumb, has been intejected into this atmosphere, and does play a role within the thoughts of both atheist and theist...

    The atheist is simply without God (like it says on the tin).

    jan.
     

Share This Page