Got faith?

Post Reply New Topic

Lee's ears have always seemed open to me... perhaps you are projecting.

I do not call people idiots. I merely point out that religion is idiocy. There is a vital difference. If I thought they were idiots there would be no way to point out the error of their thinking since they were incapable of thinking. But I am an optimist and have hopes they are thinking people who can realize what might be idiocy and what is not.

Sure ... and so now let other people be aware how pathetic it is when it does!

Just this morning I was on the phone with a close "fellowship friend" who also occasionally encounters "the ears of the religious have been shut [or at least surely do often seem closed]" ...

... and she was/is wanting to know how to try to be helpful to such folks (or in spite of them) anyway ...

... and the word "idiot/s" never found its way into our lengthy conversation.

@91:

To be fair, SAND calling someone an idiot carries no meaning. It would be significant if he said so and so was NOT an idiot.

But as for ears being stopped, you do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

If anyone's ears are open, try HEARING this:

A. It is precisely because throughout my agnostic days my eyes and ears were open that I after long time shifted Christian

B. I have rarely seen Christians put their hands over their ears and shout "Can't hear you, go away, I don't have to listen to this." I have often [including in my atheist days] seen the atheists doing that.

C. SOME religiosi and SOME atheists tweak their definitions so as to declare all evidence from the other side invalid. This is unconscionable in a scientist [and not easily overlooked in any human] - but that has never stopped proponents of one scientific theory or political stance or religious view from doing it to others.

----------------------

We humans too easily fail to recognize that two people can and often will examine and seriously consider THE SAME BODY OF EVIDENCE and cpome to different conclusions. The elephant rules till our eyes are opened.

I prefer the word "deception" there in place of "idiocy", yet we do agree in principle (and even with Alex) ...

@philologos

i dont care what your religion or beliefs are, as long as they dont force whole societys to bend to their will.

as for B i have seen a lot of christians do excactly that, not that it doesnt change the fact many atheists do as well.
again i agree with C, it is a major problem of humanity in general.

@lee,
in real life i do, usually i dont discuss religion in real life but no matter what discussion i am a part of i hate personal attacks,


all i am saying is when you actually choose to be a part of a group, no matter size, you hold some responsibility to society outside the group that superceeds the needs of the group.
now atheism is a lack of a group, even so we could use some better moderation of the extreme atheists, just as religion could for their extremists.

Interesting thought.

One of the most unacknowledged points in this discussion is that, although there are many differences in the different religions there is a rigid demand in most that the universe conform to the dogmas of their proposed beliefs.Atheists have no dogmas, most of them have rather individual and varied views of the nature of their reality and they have no written document of highly doubtful veracity demanding total acceptance to justify their viewpoint. What they have is a huge and tremendously precise library of excellent observations that have come up totally empty insofar as a supernatural force is concerned.All they can say about those observations is that they have a tremendous integrity, they can be repeated by anybody any time to be confirmed and they contain all the basic functional knowledge that underlies current technological civilization. That seems sufficient to me.

Oodain:

I would not force even my loathing of Chomsky or my disdain for daylight saving on anyone even if I could, which I can't, having no power nor position nor charisma nor persuasive words, so why even try?

I am well aware and concede [see my use of rarely] that there are those who claim the state of Christian and for all I know may be ahead of me in heaven though I hope I do not have to sit next to them who do the "don't confuse me with facts" shtick. Statistically I happen to have met more of these who were not Christians - lucked out. But it is a trait of some humans.

I am not going to address the question of the responsibility of a subgroup to the larger unit - I have never thought in thosde terms and would need to meditate.

HOWEVER:

Neither theism nor atheism is per se either group membership nor anarchy. In PPR, I trust inthe God of the Christians, but I am NOT a member of any group here or in real life. I am as I have always been Doubting Thomas, the Cat that Walked by Himself, the Cautious Raven and the Universal Heretic.

On the other hand, a number of the atheists here present have constituted themselves a loose federation. Isn't Freedom From Religion a group by any reasonable definition?

Ever since I have been a child the taste of liver nauseated me. All of my life I have denied myself the consumption of liver. Nevertheless I find it difficult to consider myself a member of the non-liver consumption group, or even that such a group has a formal existence.

I break my rule to note that I too from my earliest memories have been disgusted by liver [which I was too often forced to eat]. The smell of cooking kidneys is arguably worse, but no kidney was ever forced into my mouth.

I am not a joiner.

We in theory COULD form a group dedicated to the elimination of liver as an item of diet, and indubitably in the terms of the New Math we constitute a Set.

But I do not think the world has any use for a formally constituted group on this basis, and if it is formed I shall not join.

In principle as well as in personal practice, I would say essentially the same ... and it can easily bother me whenever someone else might just assume I apparently-obviously just must belong in one or another group, stereotype, camp or category.


... and yet some of them do still wear matching boots here in PPR and do not really care which individual boot might happen to be doing any or all of any current ass-kicking or -stomping.


... and the rest of us are expected to believe the titles of those volumes are things like "Idiots, All!" and so on?!


Substitute "supernatural" for "technological" there and I can make exactly the same kind of statement and back it up well.

That goes both ways. There are several Christians here on Wrong Planet who do not hold to any dogmas, yet you have never recognized that in spite of being informed of it on several occasions.

I have personally stated at least once that we agree on more than we disagree on, still you can't get past the disagreement on the existence of a creator or a spiritual realm. I agree the universe can be explained without them, but their existence can also be accepted without reverting to dogma or holy texts.

As has been noted many times in these many discussions the existence of something must have perceptual and verifiable indications.In scientific enquiry there are many proposals, such as the existence of multiple universes and of the Higgs boson etc that are accepted as possible but they have not entered the category of scientific accepted structures because no perceptual evidence exists. Beyond that, their observed existence would solidify the foundations of the basis other phenomena and provide a solid launching point for significant experimentation. Since the existence of a deity lies in the same unproven area as the existence of the Higgs boson it is not deniable and no one has offered an experimental pathway to determine absolutely its existence. Beyond that, as Hawking indicated, and unlike the Higgs boson, there remains no necessity for the existence of a deity at this point in our understanding. On that basis I find it satisfactory to assume is merely a piece of fanciful speculation with no more useful existence than phlogiston. I find it not only totally unnecessary but, regarding the horrifying consequences of its assumption in history, it is better discarded.

The assumption of the existence of Christ, which is the basis of any form of Christianity, has been reasonably questioned. That makes it dogma.

I offer my evidence of permanent recovery from chronic alcoholism and yet it is typically and categorically denied.


Please see just above.


Not here in PPR!


Both factors there are not true here in PPR.


Even though I can show nothing else ever worked?


And I can safely say exactly the opposite.

No you can't (not safely anyhow). No one has offered in iota of objective intersubjectively verifiable evidence for the existence of God. It is a matter of belief, not fact. Electricity is real. It can be measured. No such evidence exists for God. Not a scrap of it.

ruveyn