Discussions of Faith: Rhyfelwyr and Pizzaguy [Archive]

Askthepizzaguy

03-22-2009, 00:39

Response to Rhyfelwyr's opening statement.

No comment on the first paragraph.

In response to your second paragraph: You may advocate for the christian cause, but I will be talking about faith itself, which covers much more. I can limit the debate to more christian stuff, but it must include other forms of faith to be a complete and valid discussion. You advocate for jesus' philosophy, and that is fine. But faith is more than philosophy, and it is harmful.

In response to your third paragraph: Religion itself has no ill effects, because it is simply a theory of the supernatural. That is what religion is. Faith on the other hand is what causes the harmful effects, because people act on faith, not just religious faith, to do very very bad things. Faith is a judgment call that you will believe, unflinchingly, that which has been proven false or cannot be proven true using the scientific method. As such, it is an irrational thing to do, should it result in actions taken on this mortal realm. Should the assumptions hold true in the supposed afterlife, that is fine; but faith should not influence the living to bias their judgment, because any religious philosophy could be easily and in superior fashion replaced with rational thinking and ethics, morality, and law. Morality does not flow from the supernatural; even in a discussion where people claim that religion causes morality, they must use rational arguments to justify why something is right or wrong. That means rationalism causes morality, not faith.

In response to your fourth paragraph: All the examples of things you say religions condemn, the rational mind condemns as well. And that would explain why religions have credibility; when they were written and spread around by men who were looking to gain power, they used what we know of basic human morality as a base upon which to launch semi-reasonable attacks against the unfaithful, because they were lost, uneducated, starving people who did what they had to do to survive, and they couldn't defend themselves using rhetoric, and people flocked to religions because they were, and still are, attracted to power and authority and gangs. As for social equality, most religions advocate against social equality; Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have historically been sexist and anti-homosexual, as well as racist and genocidal towards others. In the Old Testament, the Bible adocates the tribe of Israel wipe out their neighbors. In Christianity, divine right was used as an excuse to wipe out the native americans, and to consider blacks inferior because they were considered to be godless heathens. In Islam, it says in the Koran that infidels can be destroyed and it is the will of Allah. And religions have been used in the past and in the present as excuses for war. Repression of those on the lower social order happens in Hunduism, and in many other faiths. It is not just monotheisms, but all religions I have come across which threaten those they disagree with and persecute them. Heretic burnings, witch trials, exorcisms, crusades, jihads, holy wars, religious persecution across the globe in every major and minor country... faith in religion has caused massive social disorder in every single case I have seen, and as such, I disagree with the assertion that religion brings about social equality... unless by that you mean everyone is fair game for harassment, which you probably don't mean.

:bow:

In response to your fifth paragraph: Religion is not the only barrier against the lesser nature of man, for enlightenment, rationalism, ethics, philosophy, literacy, science, art, and many other things which heighten man are not and have never been the sole domain of religion or faith. Some of the greatest thinkers in history advocated no faith, and they were not evil men who acted as animals. So I disagree with your assertions in your fifth paragraph. If you base all your reasoning on religious faith, you are building your own tower out of ancient traditions, many of which have been overturned by rational thought and society has become better for it. Women are treated as equals, racism in the workplace and in other matters has been outlawed. religious persecution is outlawed, and no religious test shall be made for the offices of government in the United States. Religion does not act as a beacon of light in this world for all, and faith is the shakiest foundation of all, because it is by definition entirely unfounded by fact. I prefer to stand on sand than nothing at all.

In response to your sixth paragraph: I believe education and reasoning can transform a person even more than a religion can. Many men have converted to a faith, and then used that faith as a tool to commit crimes against humanity, using doctrine and tradition as grounds for arguing that their crimes are now actually holy acts. Murder, for example, is holy if you are killing an infidel, according to many faiths. genital mutilation is an act of God, according to many faiths. Self-inflicted wounds can be considered holy as well to some, and human sacrifice was used historically by the faithful. Bottom line is that faith alone does not transform a person. A person must accept rational thought, ethics, and a moral philosophy, for their faith to have any merit whatsoever, and I contend you can do that without religious doctrine. I certainly have, as have millions of others. Religion is the unnecessary middle-man, and even if you must find religion, faith without doubt is an untempered force which can result in self-destruction or the destruction of others or the destruction of the mind through bias, certainty where there should be none, and self-righteousness which should never exist.

The above is my response to your opening statement; for clarity, I will restate clearly and succinctly my position.

1. Religion in and of itself is harmless, because it is a supernatural theory of existence which does not harm anyone if it is not used as a basis of rational thought.

2. FAITH in religion or anything, frankly, is harmful, because it is the rational mind surrendering to the irrational, and being influenced by the biases and superstitions of ancient tradition and mythology which has been mostly disproven or discredited or otherwise deemed unprovable by science, and therefore religion should never be associated with science, nor taught as fact. Faith in God does not in and of itself cause an issue, but the BELIEF that God wants you to do a certain thing means that you are cutting off your own reasoning process and following other men who may or may not (most likely not) have more access to this God than you do. As such, you become a follower of other people's thoughts and that leads to ignoring your own or replacing your own with other people's thoughts. Belief that God wants you to be moral is more than OK, I encourage that. Belief that God hates homosexuals is not OK, because there is no way to prove that and it can lead to persecution of innocent, kind, decent people. Belief that God wants you to cut off parts of yourself is not OK, because it can lead to permanent irreparable damage. Belief that God wants you to do this to your infant child is even less OK, because it causes permanent irreparable damage to an innocent unwilling person who may not have agreed with either your faith, or your decision to do this to this child had they been an adult, and had a say in it. Botched operations as such are like crimes against infants, because now they can no longer have a normal life. And if this God does not accept people for how they are created, then he can only blame himself.

3. Rational thought in this life is superior to faith, because it allows for mistakes. Faith does not allow for mistakes. That means that faith in something which is wrong cannot be undone, whereas a rational theory in something can be undone. As such, progress can be made using rational thought whereas faith in the supernatural cannot make forward progress for humanity.

4. All moral and ethical arguments must have a rational foundation. Religions and faithful people then use those arguments to justify conversion to such faith. But logic exists without faith, in fact, in spite of faith logic exists. And without logic, there can be no morality.

Meneldil

03-22-2009, 01:00

That is if you consider unchangeable morals to be something positive. That's precisely the issue with the Pope saying he's against condoms. I understand that he has to stand for his beliefs and morals, but maybe it's about time to admit that condoms might help fighting AIDS. The world is changing, and some ancient morals are now causing more harm than anything.
Add to that the fact that many religious morals are actually quite conservative (though to be honest, morals are by definition conservative), and then I'm definitely not sure I'd like to follow any absolute moral established centuries ago.
Then, if everything is a matter of Faith, I think I could say I have faith in Humanity (though I'm not sure this can be considered similar as having faith in a religion), but I'm not even sure to have faith in humanity.

Askthepizzaguy

03-22-2009, 01:05

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-22-2009, 01:34

Point of Order:

Religion is a theory of reality, not the supernatural. While you might term it "spernatural" and be correct, it nevertheless informs the understanding of the physical world.

Askthepizzaguy

03-22-2009, 01:35

if it is a theory of the supernatural, then it cannot be a theory of the natural world.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-22-2009, 02:13

It's a theory which embraces both. You don't have to accept it's validity, but that doesn't change what it is. I told Rwy I wasn't going to crash his party, and I'm not. However, the divine is part of the fabric of existence, not seperate from it.

Mooks

03-22-2009, 02:33

Point of Order:

Religion is a theory of reality, not the supernatural. While you might term it "spernatural" and be correct, it nevertheless informs the understanding of the physical world.

It attempts to explain what is can not be explained naturally (otherwise known as empirical evidence, the 5 senses). It goes beyond nature, so we call it supernatural.

Rhyfelwyr's quote about faith

"Faith is the result of having to think, of having to truly reflect upon our natures, and of questioning the viability of the morals and worldviews we take for granted; within the framework of a Godless existence. To avoid having faith, you must bow your head down and charge your way through life, hoping one vain pursuit occupies your mind until the next, until you hit the brick wall of death, and you can hide from the truth no more." - Rhyfelwyr

I put this in spoilers since its ATPG's turn to speak

Response:
Im really really trying hard to wrap my head around this. Please answer my following questions, as I am genuinely interested in trying to figure out exactly what you mean. Im using bullet points because they are easier to understand.

1)I was under the impression that faith is believing, not thinking. The kind of people that have absolute faith, which under no circumstances can be altered (and there are people of this nature in every religion) dont think about the existence of their diety, they know .

2)I fail to see how faith questions the human nature. As any person knows (or they are very naive) there are more then a few people that would gain power at any cost, and would shamelessly con people into giving them power; this could easily be applied to the authors of the bible or any religios text. I would generally like a better explanation of how it questions the human nature.

3)I think that all morals are customs and traditions of the times and culture of where they all. And they change fluidly, albeit very slow. What was moral hundreds or thousands of years ago, seems barbaric today. Or even a better example: what seems barbaric and horrific in one part of the world could seem perfectly civilized where its practiced. With this being said, I dont know how faith questions morals, as it keeps them exactly as they are. Followers of the bible are following the morals of the authors of the bible (and this ranges in the thousands of years), followers of the Koran are following the morals of a 7th century desert tribe.

4) You say having no faith is
you must bow your head down and charge your way through life, hoping one vain pursuit occupies your mind until the next, until you hit the brick wall of death, and you can hide from the truth no more. First, I fail to see how having no faith is like "bow your head down". If anything its straight up, think of what worshipping is, theres alot of bowing and scraping involved.

Meneldil

03-22-2009, 02:59

Meneldil-

I admire many religions, because they are basic attempts to find meaning and purpose in this life, as well as form a moral code. They were essential to the formation of modern philosophical thought, ethics and morality; however I believe they are outdated and based on as much mythology as reasoning, and therefore are no longer necessary.

However, I condemn no one for their religion; I simply question them when they act on faith alone, because that is dangerous. What a person believes about the afterlife is no one's business, and I admit, it is a comforting thought, but I would be more comforted if people rejected the ancient traditions and applied critical thinking to everything they did.

There would be no need to believe in heaven in the afterlife if this world wasn't such hell. As for the afterlife; if heaven exists, and they won't let me in because I refused to have faith in it, then it is not a place I desire to go. Especially if they won't allow decent moral rational people who are non-religious.

My comment was a response to Rhyfelwyr, but thanks for the insight.
I used to be quite anti-religious and what not, calling people who believed idiots or biggots. I even went as far as reading the Bible just to win some smartass arguments against my religious friends.
Then I met some more believers (especially here in Canada), and for the sake of not being an annoying jackass, I learnt to respect them and their ideas.

But overall, I completely agree with you. Acting out of blind faith (wether in a religion or in an ideology) is never a good thing. I don't believe in absolute morals pulled up from some book written centuries ago. Morals, based on religious teachings, have to evolve because the world is evolving, changing.

And yeah, I find the whole 'If you don't believe you're going to hell' line to be ludicrous.

Sarmatian

03-22-2009, 04:51

It might be better if people don't try to enter the discussion, even if they put it in spoiler tags. This is between Pizzaguy and Rhyfelwyr, if we interject too much it will become just another thread where all of us are involved...

Askthepizzaguy

03-22-2009, 04:52

He's a witch! Swedishfish is talking like a cat so he must be a witch! That's the devil's work, it is.

edit: his post has been deleted by a moderator, I believe.

It's a theory which embraces both. You don't have to accept it's validity, but that doesn't change what it is. I told Rwy I wasn't going to crash his party, and I'm not. However, the divine is part of the fabric of existence, not seperate from it.

But it does not embrace both. It holds as being truth supernatural reasons for creation, and life and death and allows for angels and demons and devils and saints and resurrection and so on; and it even contradicts and challenges science because people KNOW science must be wrong due the FACT that religion is the word of GOD. That kind of certainty does not exist in the rational, scientific realm.

Religion is a theory of reality, not the supernatural. While you might term it "spernatural" and be correct, it nevertheless informs the understanding of the physical world

It is not a theory, or it would be opened to being challenged, actually. I take it back; religion is more like a Law which cannot be tested or proven. As such, it is not even allowed to be called a theory; it is an untestable, unprovable, unquestionable tenet which people either believe or disbelieve.

Thought experiment:

If I were to say there is an invisible magic box which contained the Incredible Fire-Breathing Leprechaun (known from here on as IFBL for short) and I said that it is a theory of reality, which cannot be tested, questioned, or proven, then scientists would laugh in my face or attempt to reason me out of it. The religion of the IFBL, I could argue, should be taught alongside other theories of reality in science class. I could write books about it, wear holy clothes, pray to the IFBL, and make Saint Patrick's Day outlawed because it is blasphemous to the Fire-Breathing Lord. I could even try to post the tenets of my faith in court rooms next to the Ten Commandments and call them equal. For convenience, here are the tenets of the Incredible Fire-Breathing Leprechaun religion.

1. Thy Fire-breathing Leprechaun hates all other gods, therefore you should not worship them
2. Thou shalt not misspell the name of the Leprechaun God, nor use improper grammar.
3. Remember thy four-leaf clover and keep it holy.
4. Honor thy Rainbow and thy Pot o' gold.
5. Thou shalt not catch the Leprechaun.
6. Thou shalt not taste His rainbow.
7. Thou shalt not steal His Gold.
8. Thou shalt not use faerie magic against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's pixie dust.
10. Thou shalt not attempt to breathe fire like the Leprechaun God, lest you die from third-degree burns.

Because some believe (there are a growing number of us) in the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun, and it is now one of the fastest-growing religions, we demand equal time to teach children our theory of the universe, which is not to be questioned, because we find questioning our faith offensive. It is a valid theory of reality, not the supernatural, if as you suggest, other religions which teach about the supernatural are also theories about reality.

Listen, I find religion itself to be harmless and sometimes it teaches good things. For example, the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun religion does not advocate stealing people's Gold, for that is a sin against the Lord. Therefore, it begs the question; how would humanity find morality without the Book of the Leprechaun to guide us? Humanity is flawed, and only the perfect and beautiful, and very very lucky, Fire-Breathing Leprechaun Lord can show us the light. I know this sounds absurd, and like a mockery of religion, but it is not intended as such. Allow me to explain. All I really did was edit out Christian words and add the words of Irish folklore and mythology. Mythology and religion go hand in hand, most of the time, and there was a time when people believed in Leprechauns. So it is NOT a stretch to say that in our world, in our real living world, people could believe in Leprechaun Gods.

When the tenets of the religion are basically the same, just replaced with Irish folklore, they do sound rather silly, do they not? Especially when one argues that without this form of religion, mankind would be lost and unable to function or find moral truths. I am simply saying, that any religion is fine, as long as people also doubt the veracity of the tenets of that religion with equal measure that they believe in them. What IF there is an incredible, fire-breathing Leprechaun in the sky? Can anyone here suggest that God, in His infinite power, could transform Himself into a burning bush, but not a Fire-Breathing Leprechaun? If you believe in God, you must also believe He could appear as a Fire-Breathing Leprechaun if He so chose. So even though on the surface this sounds like a joke, it is but one step away from being the reality of religion itself; a story of the supernatural that people believe is 100% true, in spite of a lack of evidence which supports the story. There is almost no difference between the two stories, and the moral message that is carried is nearly the same as well.

I would suggest that many of the moral messages of faith can be taught using empirical data, observation, thought experiments, history, research, logic, reason, and debate. There is no need for the supernatural to get involved in our day-to-day decisions. If at the end of our lives, we go to heaven, or hell, or The Magic Box, then it will be proven that the theory of existence which includes those endings is true. Until then, it must be considered at best a plausible but unprovable explanation which is unsupported by fact, and therefore treated with the same grain of salt as the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun religion. I hope this thought experiment has offended no one; I had to create a fake religion as an example, as a thought experiment. No offense was intended to any person of faith. However I would say that if a person's sensibilities are so easily offended, the backroom is not for them. I apologize anyway in advance.

Reenk Roink

03-22-2009, 05:44

Atpg, a couple of comments on your comments, especially on your use of the word 'rational' and its various forms.

You say:

Faith is a judgment call that you will believe, unflinchingly, that which has been proven false or cannot be proven true using the scientific method. As such, it is an irrational thing to do, should it result in actions taken on this mortal realm

Here I take you to say that something is irrational if it either cannot be proven true using the scientific method or if it has been proven false.

(You later seem to espouse the opinion that it is "logic" that is the basis of rationality so I sense a bit of incoherence)

Ignoring what exactly you mean by 'scientific method' or 'prove' for a moment, is it correct to state that your position is one that states that the scientific method is the criteria for rationality? If so, please explicate your conception of the scientific method and then I will get back to you with my objections.

You say:
Morality does not flow from the supernatural; even in a discussion where people claim that religion causes morality, they must use rational arguments to justify why something is right or wrong. That means rationalism causes morality, not faith.

Your claim of morality not originating from the supernatural is simply false to anyone who believes in any sort of voluntarist ethics.

You then say that one must use "rational arguments" as a justification even for people who claim "religion causes morality" and I wonder how this is so. I could simply assert that supernatural being A said act X was good. You could construe this trivially to be a form of argument, but it would be trivial, as you could construe any statement as such.

Your last statement doesn't even seem to be coherent. Because someone uses rational arguments to promote a case for voluntarist ethics it means that the ethics are "caused" by "rationalism" and not voluntarism? Is this what you are saying?

religion is more like a Law which cannot be tested or proven. As such, it is not even allowed to be called a theory; it is an untestable, unprovable, unquestionable tenet which people either believe or disbelieve.

The fact of the matter is, that every foundation of "rationalism" that you have hinted at (the scientific method and logical inferences) are the same. They are unprovable.

The law of non contradiction is the basis for (traditional/classical) logic. Please prove the law of non-contradiction without reference to itself.

Please prove the assumptions that is needed for any natural science to proceed. Prove that the external world actually exists beyond our sense perception.

Or are these "unquestionable" axioms that need to be accepted before logic or the scientific method can proceed?

Lastly, please explain why something that is testable has any more epistemic merit than something that is not.

These are basic foundational questions against (what I perceive as) your view of rationalism.

But logic exists without faith, in fact, in spite of faith logic exists. And without logic, there can be no morality.

By "logic" I will take you to mean deductive inferences. Is this what you mean?

If so, I have already provided an example of an axiom of deductive logic that is accepted without proof - on 'faith' that is.

Thanks :bow:

Askthepizzaguy

03-22-2009, 05:49

Reenk, you seem to have the view that nothing can be proven because proof relies on means which you seem to consider faulty, our senses. As such, it is pointless to debate anything, because it is impossible to prove anything using such standards.

:bow:

Since we are at an impasse, I will accept further debate from you in private or a separate thread, so as not to derail this one. I seriously doubt we will reach an understanding if nothing can be proven using reason; which is interesting, because you're attempting to prove using reason that nothing can be proven using reason. A self-defeating argument.

Reenk Roink

03-22-2009, 05:56

Actually Atpg, I never denied things that your view of rationalism depends on. I never denied the validity of the law of non contradiction and the existence of an external world.

I merely ASKED you to PROVE the foundations of them. Are you not saying that say, religious revelation should be held to a standard of your rationalism? If so, I say your rationalism should be held to a standard of religious revelation, thus I require proofs.

You are correct to say that we arrive at an impasse. Essentially, you are taking the stance that religious revelation is irrational and should be held to an external standard. Any religious believer could easily reject this view and say that religious revelation is itself an epistemic primitive and needs no justification. The impasse is clear.

Lastly, even if someone denies "reason" (which I will be charitable and take as deductive inferences because it certainly is possible to argue against sense experience without using sense experience) and makes a self defeating argument against it, it in no way, shape, or form justifies this reason... :wink:

Askthepizzaguy

03-22-2009, 06:05

If one holds a subjective view of proof, and takes religion and faith as being true, and assumes that rational proofs must be false because they cannot be proven using an unreasonably high standard, then it is impossible to prove anything, because one with a subjective view of proof can simply disagree and say "I do not believe that is so."

Subjective truths cannot be disproved, because nothing can disprove opinion if one's opinion is based on subjective truth, which is incompatible with objective truth. Since there is only one truth, there is no way to prove anything to a person who does not accept objective proofs or truths. I sense you are one who believes that truth is in the eye of the beholder, that all truth is questionable if you do not believe in it, and that your opinion is as valid as everyone else's opinion, even if one's opinion is unsubstantiated by reason or evidence. When you question the common usages of reason and evidence as being valid, it becomes impossible to prove anything using your standards.

While you can debate ad infinitum using such impossible standards, you will also defeat your own argument while doing so, and as such, there is no reason for me to give you a rebuttal or attempt to answer your questions. I do have a feeling you've spent more time researching terms and have a better understanding of the subjective or unorthodox perspectives that question everything, and as such you have me at a disadvantage. However, when one begins to question that things can be proven, that rationalism and logic are more useful than faith, and when one denies objective standards of proof, then it is impossible to either win or lose a debate with you, because there is no such thing, according to your standards.

If subjectivity wins, then my view is as valid as yours, and therefore also correct, so there is no point in debating me. If objectivity wins, then subjectivity is self-defeating, and there is no point in debating me. That is where I see the impasse. However, if we are discussing different things, then you can attempt to challenge my arguments again in private or elsewhere in a separate thread.

:bow:

KarlXII

03-22-2009, 06:10

What happened to my Meow Mix song?

Moderator's Response:

It was deleted as spam as it was not remotely germane to the thread.

Moreover, you did not even provide the correct number of "meows" for the entire jingle.

Now, contribute something at least vaguely related from here on out please.

Reenk Roink

03-22-2009, 06:32

Out of respect for your discussion with Rhyfelwyr, this will be my last post on this thread (I do feel it to be VERY pertinent to the question of faith otherwise I would have just posted on your profile :bow:).

This really has nothing to do with "objective" or "subjective" "views of proof" Atpg. I think you are misunderstanding my points.

I am simply calling into question your belief that logic and the scientific method should be the standard of rationality. Why cannot it be a certain religious revelation instead?

How is the former the 'objective' standard and the latter not? To me they both look subjective and unless you explain to me how yours is the objective one, I can merely claim that another is the objective one like you are.

Frankly, it seems you are using the word objective to mean your point of view and subjective to mean not your point of view without ever demonstrating how this is so.

To show how vacuous your objective standard is, someone else could go and purport that a religious revelation is the overriding standard. He is providing a standard that is above all others, thus objective. Proof and disproof are up to it. If it claims that there is an external world then it is so.

Even further, I have demonstrated that your standards of logic and the scientific method themselves are based on axioms that are unquestioned and based thus not on proof but by faith. Your standard cannot hold up to itself, why should others have to hold up to it?

Lastly, I take issue with a statement you made to the effect of:

FAITH in religion or anything, frankly, is harmful, because it is the rational mind surrendering to the irrational, and being influenced by the biases and superstitions of ancient tradition and mythology which has been mostly disproven or discredited or otherwise deemed unprovable by science

I would contend that there is not much that has been disproven or discredited (examples please), only things that have been deemed unprovable. Science has never ruled out angels, demons, an afterlife, etc.

a completely inoffensive name

03-22-2009, 07:26

I see this one on one debate between Rhyfelwyr and Pizzaguy has stayed on course with little interference from others. And some people thought it was foolish that whenever religion is brought up you could prevent others from putting in their own opinion...

Askthepizzaguy

03-22-2009, 07:29

I probably do misunderstand your points, Reenk, because I don't agree with or understand fully your viewpoint.

What I do understand, or think I understand, from what you've said:

1. You question what makes something objective. Well, I suppose the definition of objective reasoning can be easily found online in any dictionary. I am attempting to use that definition. Not the authoritative source, but the best I can find at short notice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

There is an almost universally accepted difference in the definition of subjectivity and objectivity. Whether you agree with those differences or not, they do exist. Which is an interesting example of such; regardless of your opinion OR MINE, there is a difference between objectivity and subjectivity which is so inherent and intrinsic that it defines everything else. Subjectivity does not allow for truth itself except that which accepts conflicting truths, and to me, the definition of truth does not allow for contradictory truths to exist, otherwise they aren't true.

This statement is false, for example, cannot be true because it negates it's own logic. However, if I believe in subjective truths, I could say that the statement is true, because it is my opinion that it is, regardless of objective proof that it is self-contradictory and therefore invalid. I believe we touched on this a little bit in the Godfather thread.

2. "I am simply calling into question your belief that logic and the scientific method should be the standard of rationality. Why cannot it be a certain religious revelation instead?"

They are the standard of rationality, by the definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism)of rationalism. Again, wikipedia is hardly the authoritative source, nor do I agree with everything contained within the page, but it is a good starting point.

The trouble with your argument is that you (from my perspective) simply are challenging definitions of things, and questioning everything, and putting everything in the "no way of knowing one way or the other" category. As such, it is physically impossible to answer your questions or define terms to you. As such, I am at an impasse at understanding what it is you want from me.

Why can it not be a certain religious revelation? It could be. However, there is no evidence thereof, and when rationalism and science have proven things to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, can predict events with remarkable accuracy, can provide us with rational explanations and provide us with opportunities for growth and learning and scientific achievement, and religious tenets do not provide us with a method of doing so with any real accuracy, cannot provide us with rational explanations and provide us with opportunity for scientific achievement, then there is more value in one approach than the other in most applications in life, I argue and within a reasonable standard of proof, I can prove.

It is not religion I question, Reenk Roink. I readily admit that there is no way of knowing anything with 100% accuracy when it is scientifically unprovable. However, I AM questioning FAITH as opposed to REASON as the primary philosophical motivation, because FAITH does not bend, does not allow for changes, does not allow for error, does not allow for growth, does not allow for progress, and that is something that is objectively true based on a reasonable definition of faith versus reason.

Reason, on the other hand, allows for changes, allows for error, allows for growth, allows for progress, and that is also something that is objectively true based on a reasonable definition of faith versus reason.

If you reject reason as having value, and believe with unrelenting FAITH that religious revelation has the same intrinsic value as reason, proof, and the scientific method, then that is your opinion and it cannot be disproved using your standards. But you do not seem to believe that things can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, because (in my opinion) you base your philosophy on an unreasonable standard of doubt; therefore I cannot define my terms to your satisfaction, nor can anyone prove anything to you. But, because of your subjective viewpoint, that is fine. However, there is an objective viewpoint, and it is NOT as you suggest, simply my opinion. It is NOT simply an opinion that the Earth is round, because there is about a billion times more proof that this is true, than evidence to the contrary, therefore that theory has about a billion times more value than the theory that the Earth is somehow still flat and this is all an elaborate deception.

You could suggest that in the afterlife, we will find out that the Earth was flat all along, and were mistaken. However, the evidence does not lean that way, and if we reject reasonable standards of proof and reasoning, and blindly accept all things as having equal merit, then scientific progress is impossible, and there is no room for learning, growth, or knowledge. You seem to disagree on principle that knowledge even exists, according to your standards of proof.

As such, it is impossible to reach an understanding between our minds. However, just because you hold this opinion, that will not stop the rest of the world from using objective thought to accomplish many many things, and continue to prove using reason and evidence that rational thought is superior to irrational faith in that which can never be proven.

Again, it is NOT religion I question, but the viewpoint of 100% faith. I have doubts about the ability of science to explain everything, sure... no amount of science can explain the supernatural. But it can explain the natural world in a way that FAITH can never do. Faith does not explain; it knows unquestioningly that which cannot be known. As such, it is false logic and it has resulted in terrible consequences for mankind.

FAITH in one's own beliefs without allowing for doubt resulted in people using violence to overthrow the Russian state and then proceed to exterminate and imprison millions who disagreed with those beliefs. And that was an irreligious form of faith; faith in Communism. That same faith resulted in the deaths of millions in the Chinese civil war when political radicals murdered millions and starved millions more in their attempts to overthrow the establishment and create a new state based on their beliefs; beliefs that they had such FAITH in, that they would murder people who disagreed with them. FAITH resulted in the Holocaust; for only a man who believed with 100% certainty that his views were correct, could order the destruction of millions. If that man had doubts about his opinions, he might have thought twice before giving the order.

If I have FAITH that if I drive down the street with my eyes closed, I will be all right; I could be right. But I also could be wrong, and faith does not allow for that. As such, acting on such faith, I could be responsible for many deaths and my own.

FAITH is the unquestioning belief in something; to the point where you act on it without debate or hesitation. And FAITH is that blind, unrelenting force which does not tolerate opposing views, whether they are religious or not, and that form of INTOLERANCE is the root of all evil that has plagued mankind forever and ever. FAITH is that which does not tolerate reason or dissent. FAITH is that which contradicts and overpowers the rational mind; whether for religious or other reasons, it still is faith. Certainty where there should be none. That is what I consider FAITH.

It is NOT religion I question; it is FAITH. Religion combined with doubt allows for us to explore the rational mind and experience the occasional irrational thought or allows for us to discuss what there might be in a supernatural world.

DOUBT allows for the mind to be sane. DOUBT is the root of all scientific knowledge, DOUBT is the root of all reasoning. DOUBT is the thing which has provided mankind with ALL progress it has made towards creating a sane, viable collective existence, because DOUBT allows for dissent, disagreement, contradiction, opinion, proof, and science. DOUBT is infinitely superior to FAITH.

However, you seem to employ an unreasonable standard of doubt, which is it's own form of faith. As such, you bring the discussion to a place I cannot go, because I do not agree with the assumptions you make, as you do not agree with mine.

And because of DOUBT, I can sit here and amicably disagree with you. I have no FAITH in my opinions, I DOUBT them as much as you do. I allow for the possibility that you could be correct, even. However, I seriously doubt that an unreasonable standard of doubt is useful as a philosophical viewpoint, and I have many reasons and examples to give as to why a reasonable standard of doubt is superior to either irrational or extreme faith, or irrational or extreme doubt.

It is about moderation in things; I do believe it is possible your more radical approach could be correct, but I have not seen examples of your approach yielding positive results. I do not see examples where faith has yielded positive results either; but I do see those extremes taking credit for what the rational mind already knows, and claiming the truths which come from the rational mind and calling it part of their philosophy, when it is not so.

In the end, Reenk, you and I will never agree unless we can agree on a simple, reasonable standard of proof and a basic agreement on definitions. While you seemingly disagree that proof is even possible, and you challenge every definition I toss at you, I cannot debate with you. If I have misunderstood or mischaracterized your position, let me know elsewhere or in private, as I feel we are getting into an off-topic discussion about epistemic knowledge which suits you more than this discussion regarding faith, and it is not one I signed up for, but will gladly discuss with you elsewhere.

I will debate epistemology with you to the ends of the earth, Reenk Roink, but we will never agree, I contend, and I do believe it IS in the realm of off-topic when we are discussing the difference between reason and faith. You contend there is no difference when there absolutely is, by definition, and as such you're just questioning the definition, and that is a separate argument, and I believe ultimately the entire thing is a red herring. But that is my opinion, and that is subjective, and that is something you can challenge, and I'd be interested to see how well you do with that.

:bow:

Mooks

03-22-2009, 07:32

Out of respect for your discussion with Rhyfelwyr, this will be my last post on this thread (I do feel it to be VERY pertinent to the question of faith otherwise I would have just posted on your profile :bow:).

This really has nothing to do with "objective" or "subjective" "views of proof" Atpg. I think you are misunderstanding my points.

I am simply calling into question your belief that logic and the scientific method should be the standard of rationality. Why cannot it be a certain religious revelation instead?

How is the former the 'objective' standard and the latter not? To me they both look subjective and unless you explain to me how yours is the objective one, I can merely claim that another is the objective one like you are.

Frankly, it seems you are using the word objective to mean your point of view and subjective to mean not your point of view without ever demonstrating how this is so.

To show how vacuous your objective standard is, someone else could go and purport that a religious revelation is the overriding standard. He is providing a standard that is above all others, thus objective. Proof and disproof are up to it. If it claims that there is an external world then it is so.

Even further, I have demonstrated that your standards of logic and the scientific method themselves are based on axioms that are unquestioned and based thus not on proof but by faith. Your standard cannot hold up to itself, why should others have to hold up to it?

Lastly, I take issue with a statement you made to the effect of:

I would contend that there is not much that has been disproven or discredited (examples please), only things that have been deemed unprovable. Science has never ruled out angels, demons, an afterlife, etc.

I think what he means by objective is absolutely provable. And not only provable but repeatable. Faith based evidence (Visions, one time miracles, "prophecy's) are absolutely not. They are easily forged or made up. With processes like the scientific method something can be proved, objectively.

And science hasnt ruled out fairys, unicorns, and nymphs also. Doesnt mean we should believe in them though.

Vuk

03-22-2009, 08:34

I think what he means by objective is absolutely provable. And not only provable but repeatable. Faith based evidence (Visions, one time miracles, "prophecy's) are absolutely not. They are easily forged or made up. With processes like the scientific method something can be proved, objectively.

And science hasnt ruled out fairys, unicorns, and nymphs also. Doesnt mean we should believe in them though.

You cannot prove it, but you can also not disprove it. THAT is what makes it faith. You need faith in religions, because there is no way to prove them. You can look at evidence and be pretty sure, but so much has to be taken on faith that they are not provable.

CountArach

03-22-2009, 08:40

All these spoilers are confusing.

Rhyfelwyr

03-22-2009, 18:00

On the issue of morality: It has been argued that the moral elements seen in many faiths stem simply from rational ideas, perhaps in an attempt to letigimise a religion. Indeed, it is natural that there will be a crossover with the values promoted to ensure the smooth functioning of society, and the morals promoted by many religions. However, it is the reasoning behind these values/morals that is crucial, both at the philosophical and practical level. From the rational perspective of an atheist, these values are ultimately selfish, and even ideas which appear altruistic ultimately exist to benefit the individual indirectly through the benefits given to society. This is seen in society today, as while people are learning to live with each other in a more peaceful manner than anytime throughout history (generally speaking), so to are our motives becoming increasingly self-centred; it's all about me, how far can I progress up societies ladder? It's like the more society appears to become integrated, the more isolated people become in reality. This is living by the laws of consent, granting concessions to others so that individuals can promote themselves in society in the most efficient manner possible, without hindrance from others.

When you have faith in certain values, then your aims in following them are truly altruistic. They are not simpy the result of rational thought, and how people should generally act in society so that they can get the most benefit from it. These selfless motives take moral values to a whole new level which cannot be achieved when they serve fundamentally selfish ends. If you rationalise morals to serve your own ends, it is an entirely different manner from putting your faith in moral values, and upholding them even when it does not benefit yourself. This has a very dramatic impact on the practicability of the differing models of morality. According to rationalised morals, moral values break down with society. According to faith-based morals, niether society nor morality will collapse so long as the other remains standing, and since as you yourself said faith does not allow for change, society could never collapse, since the morals would always coexist with peoples' faith in them.

As for the discussion over whether or not morality stems from the supernatural, I ask: if morality does not stem from the supernatural, how can it then exist beyond the individual level? If it cannot, then there is no such things as universal morals, and indeed people would only be bound to their own sense of 'morality'. If you believe morality as being nothing more than some information transmitted through our genes, how then could one human ever judge another for not maintaining their own moral standards? Surely this is not a strong foundation upon which to build any sort of philosophical outlook?

On whether faith is harmful while philosophy is not: It has been argued that while Jesus' philosophy is not harmful, faith in it can be. However, surely having faith in the philosphy could not be more harmful than the philosphy itslef, since ultimately a person's faith in a philosophy is bound within the ideas of the said philosophy? Of course, it may also be argued that this is not necessarily the case, and that for many people of faith, the ends can justify the means; so while the philosophy aimed at is not in itself dangerous, the means of bringing about its prominence are. However, this need not necessarily be the case, since ultimately a philosophy may also state the nature of the faith which people are to have in it, and whether or not bad means may be used to achieve good ends. Certaintly, Christianity is clear in this respect. So, if through having faith a person carried out bad works with an aim to bringing about a dominance of Christian philosophy, they would at the same time be betraying their faith in that very philosphy, and so the bad works cannot be blamed on either the philosophy or the individual's faith in it.

On the impact of faith on the progress of society: I think it would be very unfair to suggest that if faith is prevalent within a society, the progress of that society will be impeded. Certainly, it may be true at times, but such an accusation would be making a very broad, indeed untrue, generalisation. Perhaps one of the best examples is my own homeland. France may be to many the heartland of the enlightenment, but there was at the same time incredible talent coming out of Scotland, so much so that the small impoverished nation is recognised as having its own distinct enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Enlightenment). My lecturer last term, a Professor Kidd, recognised as one of the leading Scottish historians of today, also termed it as a 'Presbyterian Enlightenment' (and no I gather he's not religious from other things he's said). Indeed, the progress seen during the period can largely be attributed to the Kirk, which through its educational measures taken to ensure all children could read the Bible, made Scotland the most literate nation in the world, despite also being a fairly poor one. It is interesting that two of the great enlightenment nations should be polar opposites, in that France was a very atheistic nation, whereas the Scots were seen as a bunch of religious extremists that occasionaly invaded England and poked their head into the bigger powers' business. If it was not for the good work of the Kirk, and the very real faith seen throughout Scottish society (of all the great Scottish Enlightenment figures, only Hume was not religous, and he was more agnostic than atheist), the nation would have remained an insignificant backwater. You may remember my earlier comment about half-hearted faith being bad for society... well faith flourished within Scotland during this period, and society benefited massively as a result.

As for the comments on sexism and social equality, if I start going into detail on this I will be going into the impact of organised religion, and not faith itself, and so it would not be strictly relevant to the debate here. Although I can't stop myself from pointing out that from my interpretation of the Bible at least, there is no place for sexism in the faith, or for social inequality. Homosexuality is another matter, and I regard it as a sin; whether or not the implications of this are good or bad for society ultimately depends on our own individual views.

On the role of faith in improving/transforming the nature of man as opposed to other means: It has been argued that rationalism, ethics, philosophy, literacy, science, and art are all just as capable, if not moresoe, than faith in transforming the nature of man. However, this is one point in which I must very strongly disagree. The things listed are as much a product of a good society as a cornerstone of it, and their ability to reform the nature of man are much more superficial than the ability of faith to do the same thing. Indeed, there is nothing on that list that can transform the nature of man, since being external influences, they will always be interpreted through the flawed nature of man in the first place. Faith, on the other hand, works from the inside out. It transforms the nature of the individual and therefore his role in society, rather than hoping that society may transform the individual. If society merely reflected the nature of its inhabitants, how they could a positive influence ever come upon society so that it might begin to positively influence its inhabitants in the first place? Through having faith, people put their trust in absolute values, which are above the corruption of society. It is only by taking that leap of faith that the transformative process of a man's nature may begin, and through working at first in the man, later translate into society.

On whether faith is exlusive from rationality, and if not, should it still be considered faith: In this part of my response I will also attempt to answer Mooks' query on my earlier comment (haha it looks really morbid and dramatic in hindsight). I agree with ATPG in that I would consider totally blind faith in something to be silly, however I think his view of faith as being something entirely unfounded is unreflective of the reality for many faithful folk. If you ask a religous person why they belive what they do, do you really think the answer would be "because I just do"? For some, that may be what faith means, but for the vast majority of people it is not. If you ask a Christian why have faith in the Lord, they will tell you that it is because they feel His presence, and they believe in His ways (and not just from a rational perspective). According to ATPG's definition, people neither know anything of what they have faith in (besides what they deliberately make up), or the gap in undestanding between themselves and the said thing. C.S. Lewis offers IMO a more accurate description of the faith many people hold, stating that faith is the means by which we hold to our reasoned ideas. And this is to me what faith is about. It is not about randomly launching yourself off one platform, and hoping there's another out there on which you may land. It is about knowing there is a platform out there, perhaps with a vague idea of where it is, and taking that leap of faith, and hoping you land safely. There is rationalism and logic behind this leap of faith - having seen the bigger picture, we acknowledge the limits of our rational minds to fill in the gaps in our understanding, and take that leap nonetheless. This would certainly still be considered faith by most people's definitions, since we are not demanding reasonable proof as you term it; no, far from it. We have faith because we do not demand total proof, but put our faith, our trust, in that ideal to which we believe to be very real, and to which we hold even in the face of doubt. We believe that the truth of the ideal is sufficient to merit a degree of dismissal when we face evidence against it which falls within the gaps of our (humanity as a whole) understanding. Therefore, we are still being rational, while having faith. Faith is acknowledging the limits of your own rationality where minor details contradict the greater truths to which you hold.

Askthepizzaguy

03-22-2009, 18:52

Once again, I will read your response very carefully, and give it some thought. Perhaps later today, or in a day or two, I will pose you some direct questions. Thank you for your thoughtful answers.

:bow:

Askthepizzaguy

03-22-2009, 19:37

In response to your first paragraph:

On Selfish values- Indeed, the morality of a non-religious person can be considered selfish. But what is the morality of a religious person, concerned with pleasing God and obtaining a ticket to heaven? Is this not selfish as well? Furthermore, an atheist claims no guaranteed reward, whereas a religious person does claim a supposed God-promised reward, for being good. I would argue that a moral atheist is less selfish than a moral Christian. However, that is not the point; the point is that we all, in whatever manner we need to do so, behave as civilized beings who love one another. It is not a contest to see who does it in the purest manner. I frankly don't care if someone behaves nicely because they believe that the Devil himself will grant him the power to murder everyone over and over again in sick pleasure, so long as they behave nicely until they die. Once they are dead, they are no longer my issue. I don't care much for motivations, though they matter in some arguments; here, I only care about results. Are we moral or not? If it is a selfish morality, fine... at least it is morality.

In response to your second paragraph:

I strongly disagree. Not all faith-based morality is altruistic, as I have shown above. Because this argument has been effectively disproven by example, I see no need for further rebuttal. Ultimately it does not matter to me either way, but I can argue effectively that rational morality is fundamentally stronger than religious morality because there is no guarantee of reward, even if there is still a desire for it.

In response to your third paragraph:

"if morality does not stem from the supernatural, how can it then exist beyond the individual level?"

If morality stems from the supernatural, how can people who do not believe in the supernatural become moral? Since I and millions of others are moral, clearly morality stems from the natural, and the supernatural claims credit for morality when it does not deserve to do so. And since the laws of the United States do not come from the Biblical interpretation of God, they come from scholars and philosophers and lawyers and theorists and ethicists and learned men and unlearned men alike, I say we can do just fine without a Supreme Being telling us what to do; or at least equally well without it. Look at how much death and war happens among the "godly".

In response to your fourth paragraph:

The Philosophy is not the issue, it is the unrelenting, unwavering, unfaltering faith in it which causes people to close their minds and their hearts to alternatives; indeed the belief that Jesus was GOD means you cannot contradict him about anything. I find little to disagree with him about, but people acting in his name utilizing FAITH cite the Bible and Jesus and then do very un-Christian things, and believe they are acting holy because of their faith, even when it contradicts the religion and the philosophy. A philosophy is a collection of ideas and theories about how to live your life. FAITH is the unrelenting certainty that you are 100% correct about something, and are willing to commit extreme acts with that level of certainty. Acting on faith is dangerous and corrupt.
It is not necessarily the case that faith must lead to violence and extremes, but when a person "knows" with "certainty" something which cannot be known with certainty, that is a perversion of the rational mind and always leads to chaos.

In response to your fifth paragraph:

What was that about occasionally invading England? And was the enlightenment a direct result of faith? I doubt it, because enlightenment requires embracing new ideas. When one has faith that they already have the answers, there is no need for new ideas, and new ideas are immediately shunned, as they always have been by the faithful.

In response to your sixth paragraph:

Here you must see that it is YOUR interpretation of the Bible which is not sexist, while a very literal viewpoint is absolutely sexist, as it states very clearly that man is superior to woman. I can quote you passages from the Skeptics' Annotated Bible. But that is religion, not faith. YOUR faith decries sexism, and you would challenge any sexism in the bible. Which means you do not have faith in the literal nature of the Bible, and therefore you interpret it as you please, which means you are, strictly speaking, not following the religion literally, and therefore aren't faithful to the letter of the religion. I admire your rebellion and progressive interpretation, but you must admit, your interpretation cannot be possible without DOUBT in the literal Bible. Your faith is not pure faith, but faith combined with DOUBT, which I advocate and applaud. Thank you. As for homosexuality, if you condemn that as a sin, why do you not condemn all the other behaviors in Leviticus and the Old Testament? Why just that one? I find criticism of homosexual desire to be hypocritical coming from anyone besides a saint, and as I've discovered through experience, no mortal person is a saint, nor are they without flaw. Believe as you do, but science has shown us that homosexual desire is part of nature, and we are part of nature. We can choose to abstain from it, but the desire is something some people are born with and cannot change, and that is the progressive, scientific viewpoint, which rejects wholesale condemnation of a thing we cannot understand.

In response to your seventh paragraph:

Faith cannot reform the nature of man; faith merely enslaves the man to certainty where none should exist. It transforms the man into a person who refuses to question something which must be questioned; the unknown. it coerces the man to follow religious leaders and false logic, and doctrine and prophecy and assumption after assumption, and it requires a man to act a certain way to satisfy the dictates of his faith. Even non-religious faith, if I use the blind man driving a vehicle as an example, is dangerous, because it transforms a man from someone who recognizes danger and doubts his own abilities, into a madman who believes he can do anything if he believes in it enough; endangering himself and others and the rational mind itself. As for leaps of faith; I would respond, "always look before you leap". Faith does not allow this.

In response to your eight paragraph:

You agree that total, blind faith is silly. You have just conceded a crucial part of the argument to me. Faith is nothing if it is not total, and faith is always blind because true faith does not question nor does it have foresight or hindsight. You are advocating partial faith, then.... which is not faith, but strong belief. Partial faith or strong belief also coerces and threatens the mind, but at least you are open to the idea that you could be wrong, and THAT is what I want to hear. When people say they "feel" the presence of the Lord, I question how. They do not cite their senses, so it must be intuition. Intuition can be wrong, so therefore, you must question it. When they believe they understand the mind and will of God, I become afraid. No mortal man understands the will of God, no matter how much they believe that they do. When they believe they are acting in God's name, they are capable of anything. People acting in the name of God slaughtered billions and billions of people to date, raped the unwilling, enslaved, conquered, subjugated, persecuted, forcibly converted, tortured, starved, and buried alive those who disagreed with them, and waged holy war. And in all cases, they believed they understood the nature of God, and what God desired. Nothing is so disastrous a mistake as the claim that one understands the will of God. Doubt is the only cure for such destructive, damaging faith.

I would like to pose you some questions, if you do not mind. The opening arguments are over; let us attempt to bridge our minds and understand one another better. You may also pose me questions which I will attempt to answer.

Rhyfelwyr

03-22-2009, 22:39

Of course, you may ask me any questions you have. Now, my next formal response:

On the issue of morality and selfishness: If you accept that the atheistic, rationalist view of morals is at its heart self-centred, how then do you consider it in any way virtuous? You more or less summed up my ideas on the atheistic view of morality - you don't care about whether or not it is good natured, as long as it doesn't harm you then you are happy with it. This is nothing but pure selfishness, and since this 'morality' is founded upon selfishness, it will collapse as soon as a person's interests are no longer served by it. It is niether a universal nor enduring form of 'morality'. I think grouping such vaules under the term 'morality' is simply a hangover from a faith-based past, and is inappropriate considering the reasons why people hold to such values today. I accept your point that in some faiths, people may be following a supernatural morality for selfish ends, ultimately access to their idea of Heaven. But this is again a very generalised statement, and in particular is not at all applicable to Christianity. "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it." (Luke 9:24). If you go into it looking for a reward, you can be certain you will not find one.

On the implications of a supernatural morality: You hit the nail on the head. People who do not take that leap of faith to trust in the supernatural cannot be moral. And while you consider yourself to be moral, I contend that point. And I apologise when it is such an offensive thing to say, but this belief is too central to my argument to avoid it. You are living by the laws of consent, exactly as I described above. I used to be exactly the same as you, indeed I thought I could justify myself by my good deeds and my apparent harmony with society. But it was only by taking a leap of faith that I realised just how wrong I was. I was superficially, even effectually, a moral person; but deep down, I was not. Until we all acknowledge this, we may have a decently functioning society, but it will never be perfect so long as a rotten core remains, storing the seed of future trouble.

On whether faith is fundamentally harmful: The implications of a person's faith are dependent upon whatever it is that they have faith in. Faith is not necessarily harmful. I don't think you really adressed my point, in that if a philosophy condemns those who have faith in it from participating in bad works, then by committing those bad works, people are betraying their faith; neither their faith or the philosophy they believe in can be blamed. If a philosphy condemns bad works through faith, then by no stretch of the imagination can true faith in that philosophy cause bad works. As soon as they commit a bad work, they betray their faith. Indeed, having true faith in this philosophy would be the only way to be sure people did not commit bad works. Therefore, there are forms of faith which not only discourage bad works, but make them an impossibility so long as the faith is truly followed. Your argument presumes people may use bad means to achieve good ends, however according to certain faiths this is impossible for their followers.

On whether faith excludes new ideas: The part about invading England is an incredibly complex issue well without the scope of this debate. And faith does not exclude new ideas, otherwise the Scottish Enlightenment would never have happened (and it is an undeniable fact according to reasonable proof, that it did happen!). In fact, I would say that it was faith that compelled many of the Scottish enlightenment thinkers to do their great works. As I said earlier, when we have faith in something greater than ourselves, we don't claim to know everything in between (otherwise where would our faith lie?). If you have blind faith in something (blind faith meaning you don't even have a clue what that something is, and not just the gaps in your understanding), then you will not be compelled fill in the gaps in your understanding. If you have no faith in anything, you similarly have no motive to investigate (even if that faith is in the idea that we have a purpose as it is for many atheists). When you do start to become inquisitive is when you have faith in something beyond yourself, and so you work and work to bridge the gap and understand it better. That's what was going on for these Scottish enlightenment thinkers. Even those in atheistic France had faith in their philosophies which went beyond human understanding, they were working towards something, not just inventing it themselves. They bridged the gaps with faith.

On my interpretation of the scripture and whether or not it is literal: Though the term is flung about very carelessly these days, I would consider myself to be a fundamentalist. Being a fundamentalist does NOT make you a literalist. A literast would believe Jesus is a vine. Christian fundamentalists form a much broader church than the stereotypes would suggest. As a fundamentalist, I have no reason to be sexist as a result of my interpretation of the scripture. I presume you are referring to the writings of Paul, in which case I point out the need to distinguish between direct scripture from which doctrine is to be derived, and the parts of the scripture which simply record events. Though I believe God guided Paul's hand as he wrote the scripture, that doesn't mean all Paul's actions were exemplary for Christians today (or at any other time for that matter). If you did, you would end up with some pretty bizarre doctrines from the actions of various Biblical characters. We have one example to follow - Jesus. As for the issue with homosexuality, it remains a no-no for Christians today because unlike other commands in Leviticus, it was not given to Jews specifically as a 'statute unto their people'. Not to mention the fact that several commands within that category were specifically repealed by characters, including Jesus, in the New Testament - homosexaulity was not. Plus it remains totally contrary to the whole message conveyed throughout the New Testament, and I think it's best we don't discuss it anymore in this thread, since it's a side issue.

On the issue of faith's ability to transform the nature of a man: You say "look before you leap", but what if you look and you don't understand what you see? That's when it's up to you, whether or not you want to take that leap of faith. If we looked and understood what we observed, then faith would not be a factor should we attempt to cross the gap. I fully agree with you, faith can be dangerous, because it is taking a risk. If you leap you may fall, you may take others down with you. But you may also reach that higher platform. If you refuse to have faith, you condemn yourself to stagnation forever, or certaintly at least to the limits of your own rationality. If mankind was imprisoned by his own rationality, it would be a very dark and tiny cell which he would be forced to inhabit! By having faith, you free yourself from those restrictions. If you're wrong, the consequences might be unpleasant. If you were right to trust in that higher ideal which you couldn't quite understand... who knows where you'll end up.

As for your comments on how people are enslaved by elements of organised religion, that is not something I disagree with, however it is non strictly related to this thread. By my understanding of the scripture, such problems should not exist, although I realise this is not the case for all faiths.

On whether or not I concede anything by saying blind faith is silly: I've conceded nothing because blind faith is no more silly than total rationality is impossible (are you being rational in being rational?). Unfortunately, the issue has been clouded by the fact that blind faith is not only being portrayed as having faith to bridge the gaps between ourselves and something beyond our understanding, but you are portraying faith as if we are equally blind as to the thing which we are trying to reach at the end of the bridge (you suggest there is no reason to believe in such a thing). This is not accurate, this is a totally unrealistic, practically non-existant version of faith which is not evident in any religion I can think of.

Faith can be total without being blind. I think there is just confusion over where the faith lies. Think of God as being the light at the end of a tunnel. I know it's there. But at the same time, the path in front of me is so dark, indeed it is all that I know, that I cannot make sense of the light. And I know if I try to walk the path I could stumble at any point, the darkness seems so absolute it makes me wonder if there can be such a thing as light at all. And although what I see on my road down the path would appear to contradict my vision of the light, I have faith in the light, I trust in it.

And by this definition, faith is as absolute as our confidence in our own perception, indeed our own rationality. And though it appears impossible, God can put absolute assurance into a mind which must even question its own reliability (He is omnipotent after all :beam:). Which I know is a bit off-topic, it's just something I wanted to say. However, I would never claim to understand God or His will as you suggest. The issue with faith for us religious folk is believing that He is there, not that we know everything about Him. Like yourself, I would be very concerned if somebody claimed they did.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

03-23-2009, 01:28

Askthepizzaguy

03-23-2009, 03:27

Ah, Rhyfelwyr, you have given me much red meat to sink my teeth into. I believe we have reached a point in the discussion which will prove most fruitful.

I'd like to pause here and address many of the points which you brought up in your response. There are many things I wholly disagree with, and further, I believe I can explain myself in such a way which will help bridge the gap we seem to have. This is very important; I believe you and I to be not that different, but you state in your argument that my morality is hollow and selfish, and that it must be totally motivated by my own selfish values. You argue that your morality is pure and superior because it is motivated by faith in the supernatural. You contend that you used to be just like me... and now you're better because you have faith in the supernatural. Now I can roll up my sleeves and get to work. Because I do not believe as you do, even if I act as morally and pure, I am somehow rotten to the core. Do you feel the same about Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Mormons? Or just the faithless. Must I have faith in something to be moral?

You have much that is positive and valid in your argument, but you falter here when you judge me as morally bankrupt for not having faith. This shows the fallacy in your reasoning; I never said that faithful people cannot be reasonable, rational, or moral, because those are facts. Conversely, you must agree that the faithless can be reasonable, rational, and completely moral as well. If we have the same values and the same moral codes, but simply do not believe in the same God, or gods, or afterlife, we are somehow less moral? Does a baby who has no knowledge of religion also rank so low in your eyes because they have not been enlightened by faith? I must vehemently disagree with your argument here, because if a person acts moral, preaches morality, believes in moral values, and lives a moral life, they are moral. That has nothing to do with religion.

If you accept that the atheistic, rationalist view of morals is at its heart self-centred, how then do you consider it in any way virtuous? You more or less summed up my ideas on the atheistic view of morality - you don't care about whether or not it is good natured, as long as it doesn't harm you then you are happy with it. This is nothing but pure selfishness, and since this 'morality' is founded upon selfishness, it will collapse as soon as a person's interests are no longer served by it. It is niether a universal nor enduring form of 'morality'. I think grouping such vaules under the term 'morality' is simply a hangover from a faith-based past, and is inappropriate considering the reasons why people hold to such values today

I believe that some rational views of morality can be selfish, but that is not the heart of it. In fact, what does a rational man who is rich have to gain from giving away his money? He's going to die, and fame is fleeting. He gains nothing from charity if he is purely selfish. Since he doesn't believe in heaven and eternal reward, what precisely is his selfish motivation? It seems to me that you are making a false assumption that irreligious values must at the core be rotten and selfish. If I have misinterpreted this assumption, please tell me. But I can assure you, rational virtue is simply being virtuous because it is right to do so.

I accept your point that in some faiths, people may be following a supernatural morality for selfish ends, ultimately access to their idea of Heaven. But this is again a very generalised statement, and in particular is not at all applicable to Christianity.

Then you must accept that your generalized statement that all irreligious people have a purely rotten and selfish morality is also inherently flawed. If I cannot say that all Christians are just trying to get into heaven, you cannot say that all atheists are just trying to make themselves feel better and get ahead in life. So, I believe in order to make forward progress, we both must concede those points. Though to be fair, I didn't say that all religious people are just trying to get into heaven, my point was that when you say irreligious philosophy is inherently selfish, I can point out that religious philosophy can be even more selfish, and that my main point is that not all irreligious people are inherently selfish. We are willing to do hard work, spread tolerance and enlightenment, give our lives in defense of freedom and the innocent, and give to charity, and none of these things with the thought of going to heaven or being rewarded by God. This is absolutely true, and I believe if we are to have an honest debate, you must admit that this is true; that non-religious people can be moral, and have it not always flow from a rotten corrupt place.

People who do not take that leap of faith to trust in the supernatural cannot be moral.
This is absolutely incorrect, and I can prove that. If I give a kidney to save a little girl's life, and I don't believe in God, am I bereft of morality? I believe you must retract this statement. It's not offensive to me, it is simply wrong, and it is so patently and obviously wrong, that you must agree or I do not believe you're being honest.

And while you consider yourself to be moral, I contend that point.

Only your God can judge how moral I am, or is that not what you believe? This is another flaw with absolutist faith in religion; you refuse to believe I can be moral without your God, and you judge me as a person, rather than debate the concepts of faith and reason. We are talking about the intrinsic value of faith versus reason; I am not calling you irrational nor morally bankrupt, even when I say that absolutist faith can lead to the irrational. When you say that I cannot be moral because I don't follow your faith, you're judging me, and you're also wrong. Billions of people on this planet are moral without your God, and until you accept that, you will live with a prejudice about them.

And I apologise when it is such an offensive thing to say, but this belief is too central to my argument to avoid it.

Hence the problem of absolutist belief, of absolutist faith. You're willing to paint someone you don't even know as an immoral man because he doesn't believe in your God. That is the flaw of faith... you know without knowing, you believe without reason. This is prejudice without shame.

You are living by the laws of consent, exactly as I described above.

No, I am living by the laws of reason, of logic, of the fundamental reality of life; we all want to exist, we all want to live free, we all want to avoid pain and suffering, we all want our basic human rights protected, and I do not desire to harm or be harmed by anyone. I am not willing to break a code of moral values which I have assembled from logical and self-evident truths (those truths our Constitution of the United States was built upon) which I believe serves the best interests of all, even when it does not serve my personal self-interest. That is selfless rational ethics, and a completely godless form of ethics which does not allow me to murder or steal or rape. Then again, I would not desire to do so, but I follow the code of ethics even when I am upset or hurt or have been betrayed. I do not have absolute faith in my interpretation of logic and reason and morality, but I have a fairly good idea that if I stab someone, it will hurt; if I torture an animal, it will hurt; if I rape someone, it will hurt; if I betray, or lie, or cheat, it will hurt; and to inflict suffering or destruction upon others is the greatest sin against mankind. I serve the interests of all mankind, not my own. If it were necessary to throw myself on top of a bomb to save the life of someone who could cure cancer, I would. And I would not expect God to meet me in heaven, nor reward me.

I am the non-religious believer in morality, and my moral code is not rotten or selfish, sir.

I used to be exactly the same as you, indeed I thought I could justify myself by my good deeds and my apparent harmony with society.

What was wrong with that? I see a disconnect between this statement and the next.

But it was only by taking a leap of faith that I realised just how wrong I was. I was superficially, even effectually, a moral person; but deep down, I was not.

if you look like a moral person, act like a moral person, are effectively a moral person, and believe you are a moral person, then deep down, you are a human being trying to be moral. There is nothing wrong with that. And no matter what FAITH you have, deep down you are a human being. No amount of belief will change that. You cannot abandon your humanity.

Until we all acknowledge this, we may have a decently functioning society, but it will never be perfect so long as a rotten core remains, storing the seed of future trouble.

We will never be perfect. And humanity is not rotten to the core, it is human. And you are also human, and you will never escape from that, no matter how many bibles you read, nor prayers you pray, nor rituals you perform. You will always be a flawed human being, and just because you have added religious faith, that does not make you inherently better than anyone else. It is your works in this life and the virtues you believe in which make you moral. Not God.

There is much more that needs to be addressed; I have not even gotten halfway down your post. However, because the argument is branching off into different discussions, I will stop here and allow you to address the point I have made, which is:

Religion is not the sole source of morality. A person can be moral without it, and I can give you as many examples as you wish. You must address my concerns with this point. If you believe that a person must be immoral if they have no God, then you have prejudice. I do not say that if a person has faith they must be a crazy person. You must not say that the irreligious can have no morality, or if they have morality it must be a false one, unless you can back that up with a valid argument.

I await that argument. :bow: You must respond to this before we can continue; then I can move on to the latter half of your argument above.

Askthepizzaguy

03-23-2009, 04:02

I won't say too much as I don't wish to derail a very interesting argument, but a couple of things I would mention...

Morality: Rhyfelwyr claims that morals held by those of little faith, such as myself, are essentially self-interested. Without going into too much detail I disagree. I don't see myself as acting in a moral way in order that others will also act in a moral way. Indeed many people I have met, and even a lot of my friends do not (and I quote my best mate here) 'have such ridiculously high moral standards [as me]'. Morality stems from personal preference, which is influenced by teachings from outside society, including religions, but not necessarily faith. (That doesn't seem to make much sense, but if you are interested in discussing this further Rhyfelwyr (or anyone else for that matter) feel free to PM me.)

Faith: Just to get this clear, are talking about religious faith in particular here? It would seem so, but I don't think it has been explicitly stated (I could be wrong). If not it would not be wrong to question ATPG on whether he has faith in the world being here tomorrow, or scientific theory. I believe, and this is off the top of my head here, that the basic scientific theory of induction relies heavily on faith in its continued success and a healthy measure of pragmatism (Hume writing in the 17th century produced a seemingly valid argument against it proving anything). Reality for all we can prove, may not exist at all....

I have the same reaction to Rhyfelwyr's argument, and I am challenging him, courteously, on that point.

As for whether or not I have faith in the world being here tomorrow; I could die tonight and from my perspective it wouldn't be here anymore. And someone could be a real :daisy: moron and fire some nuclear missiles, and that would be just about the same thing. So no, I have no faith that anything will be here tomorrow. I have hope, and I must assume that it will be here, or else I cannot live a productive life.

Do I have faith in anything? I have roughly 99.999% belief that there is fundamentally a universal objective truth which exists independent of our perceptions; but I also admit that it is possible that I could be wrong. However, if I am wrong, nothing really matters anyway, so there is no point in discussing that possibility, because if there is no truth, you're not really here to argue it with me.

Louis VI the Fat

03-23-2009, 14:29

All these spoilers are confusing.They are a bit, aren't they?

Askthepizzaguy

03-23-2009, 14:49

I think your post is humorous, Louis VI the Fat, however I also do believe it is borderline spam.

:bow:

naut

03-23-2009, 14:51

Do I have faith in anything? I have roughly 99.999% belief that there is fundamentally a universal objective truth which exists independent of our perceptions; but I also admit that it is possible that I could be wrong. However, if I am wrong, nothing really matters anyway, so there is no point in discussing that possibility, because if there is no truth, you're not really here to argue it with me.
You almost, almost, stepped into the realms of absurdism and Camus and Kierkegaard. And I was about to celebrate, and throw a party. But, as quickly as you got there you descended back down into Nihilism.

Askthepizzaguy

03-23-2009, 14:55

You almost, almost, stepped into the realms of absurdism and Camus and Kierkegaard. And I was about to celebrate, and throw a party. But, as quickly as you got there you descended back down into Nihilism.

To be fair, I don't really believe in Nihilism, in fact, basically everything I write, especially towards Reenk Roink, is an argument against Nihilism. I am arguing that if objective truth does not exist, then nothing is actually true, and that I DON'T believe that is the case. I am an advocate for objective truth, not nihilism in any form. Have I misinterpreted your statements, or have you misinterpreted mine?

Louis VI the Fat

03-23-2009, 15:18

I think your post is humorous, Louis VI the Fat, however I also do believe it is borderline spam. Are you suggesting that my post was only about spoiling this thread? :inquisitive:

naut

03-23-2009, 16:03

To be fair, I don't really believe in Nihilism, in fact, basically everything I write, especially towards Reenk Roink, is an argument against Nihilism. I am arguing that if objective truth does not exist, then nothing is actually true, and that I DON'T believe that is the case. I am an advocate for objective truth, not nihilism in any form. Have I misinterpreted your statements, or have you misinterpreted mine?
I think I may have misinterpreted the second part of the section I quoted, but nonetheless the bit in bold I would like to speak regarding:

The problem isn't that objective truth doesn't exist, it's that it is fundamentally whole at a level below where words have meaning. Words simplify the inherent features of things, so by categorising them with words we lose objective meaning. Does it mean that it is not true? No, it is just not true in our semantic structure.

P.S.: On a side note, the main problem I have with reason/rationality is that it stumbles over human irrationality, especially when it is used efficaciously or with pride. And it is absurd to think that it can be fundamentally separated from irrationality.

(The above makes more sense in my head)

Askthepizzaguy

03-23-2009, 16:07

I'd agree our language is horribly imprecise (one of the reasons I define Faith as being a wholly separate entity from Religion, because they are two distinct concepts) but at the same time, I'd prefer to speak in rhetoric which most closely matches our understanding of objectivity. I do not wish to abandon the near-ideal simply because the ideal is impossible.

Much like morality itself; the ideal (perfection) is impossible, but we should aim for as close as possible.

Rhyfelwyr

03-23-2009, 16:49

I'd like to pause here and address many of the points which you brought up in your response. There are many things I wholly disagree with, and further, I believe I can explain myself in such a way which will help bridge the gap we seem to have. This is very important; I believe you and I to be not that different, but you state in your argument that my morality is hollow and selfish, and that it must be totally motivated by my own selfish values. You argue that your morality is pure and superior because it is motivated by faith in the supernatural. You contend that you used to be just like me... and now you're better because you have faith in the supernatural. Now I can roll up my sleeves and get to work. Because I do not believe as you do, even if I act as morally and pure, I am somehow rotten to the core. Do you feel the same about Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Mormons? Or just the faithless. Must I have faith in something to be moral?

If you are asking me as a Christian, then yes I must group those faiths you listed with the faithless (except Jews). And I would go further than to suggest you have a hollow form of morality and that mine is superior; for I would only consider there to be one, absolute, all encompassing moral code. I believe that mine is real, and yours does not exist at all. You either follow it or you do not, there is no room for relativism. It is not the faith in itself that makes us moral, the faith is crucial in that it bridges the gap between ourselves and the greater truths to which the faithful hold. The faithful may be right in holding to this greater truth, equally sometimes they will not be. But if that thing in which you have faith turns out to be correct/real, then you may begin to implement that philosophy into your life, and practice the true (and only) moral code. Sometimes people are just plain wrong in their ideas of the supernatural in which they place their faith. You must place your faith in the supernatural (and turn out to be correct in your chosen faith) if you are to be moral.

You have much that is positive and valid in your argument, but you falter here when you judge me as morally bankrupt for not having faith. This shows the fallacy in your reasoning; I never said that faithful people cannot be reasonable, rational, or moral, because those are facts. Conversely, you must agree that the faithless can be reasonable, rational, and completely moral as well. If we have the same values and the same moral codes, but simply do not believe in the same God, or gods, or afterlife, we are somehow less moral? Does a baby who has no knowledge of religion also rank so low in your eyes because they have not been enlightened by faith? I must vehemently disagree with your argument here, because if a person acts moral, preaches morality, believes in moral values, and lives a moral life, they are moral. That has nothing to do with religion.

I do not consider this a fallacy in my reasoning. Conversely, I believe there to be a fundamental fallacy in your own argument here. You are suggesting that morals are attainable without placing faith in the supernatural, that they can be discovered through human reasoning and logic alone. You say this means that while you allow for faithful people to be moral, I do not afford the same courteousy to the faithless. However, you are assuming that your rational-based view of morality is correct; I would say it is nonexistant, and so in reality your argument affords moral values to nobody. Now, I agree wholly with part of your argument. The faithless can be reasonable and rational, indeed if this is all they are, then it will be their downfall. But I cannot also agree to suggest that they are moral. You do not have the same values or moral code as myself. To you, morality means serving humanity through values attainable by human understanding. To myself, morality is serving God (He is the source and nature of all good), through an absolute, universal, unchanging moral code. Just because there is an obvious crossover in the practical effects of our ideas of morality does not mean in any way, shape, or form, that they are the same. You believe morality exists to serve the individual. I believe the individual exists to be moral. Superficially they may appear similar, but even by your view of morality, surely you would agree people are best judged by intentions rather than actions? It is in questioning this that your view of morality breaks down, till it becomes nothing more than a collection of nice ideas that can complement society when it's running smoothly.

I believe that some rational views of morality can be selfish, but that is not the heart of it. In fact, what does a rational man who is rich have to gain from giving away his money? He's going to die, and fame is fleeting. He gains nothing from charity if he is purely selfish. Since he doesn't believe in heaven and eternal reward, what precisely is his selfish motivation? It seems to me that you are making a false assumption that irreligious values must at the core be rotten and selfish. If I have misinterpreted this assumption, please tell me. But I can assure you, rational virtue is simply being virtuous because it is right to do so.

I think that as a social species, the fates of society and the individual are largely intertwined. As a result of this, our genes programme us to act in an apparently altruistic fashion, but with selfish motives. This is quite seperate from our conscious decisions, but is instead firmly rooted in our subconscious.

This subconcious factor can in turn be influenced by events we interpret through our consciousness. For example, an apparently charitable act such as giving money to orphans in Africa would be triggered by a shock factor having seen their living conditions. Subconsiouslly, it worries us to see society in such a state (even if our consciousness would know this is silly since it barely affects our society), and so we contribute to help maintain it. Furthermore, our genes may reward us by making us feel good about ourselves because of this act of charity, so there is even a direct reward! Who would deny that such a phenomenon exists?

Also, even if a healthy person gives a kidney to a dying child, is it because they really wanted to help them at their own expense? Or is it because as a social species, we are made to feel a guilt factor (knowing our fates are intertwined, every human must have been valuable in the old hunter-gatherer societies), and so act upon that instead? As a social species, our genetic makeup must force us, a fundamentally selfish creature, to make altruistic actions, by providing selfish incentives.

Then you must accept that your generalized statement that all irreligious people have a purely rotten and selfish morality is also inherently flawed. If I cannot say that all Christians are just trying to get into heaven, you cannot say that all atheists are just trying to make themselves feel better and get ahead in life. So, I believe in order to make forward progress, we both must concede those points. Though to be fair, I didn't say that all religious people are just trying to get into heaven, my point was that when you say irreligious philosophy is inherently selfish, I can point out that religious philosophy can be even more selfish, and that my main point is that not all irreligious people are inherently selfish. We are willing to do hard work, spread tolerance and enlightenment, give our lives in defense of freedom and the innocent, and give to charity, and none of these things with the thought of going to heaven or being rewarded by God. This is absolutely true, and I believe if we are to have an honest debate, you must admit that this is true; that non-religious people can be moral, and have it not always flow from a rotten corrupt place.

No. You cannot say that all (or indeed any) Christians are trying to get into Heaven. You would be incorrect to say that a single Christian is trying to get into Heaven. You cannot say this because the Christian belief system does not allow for it. If a self-proclaimed Christian was serving God to try and get into Heaven, they would not in reality be a Christian. It is adherence to the belief system that defines us, not how we define ourselves, that counts. On the other hand, I can say that all irreligious people are rotten and selfish, because they have no belief system that would mean that if my statement was true, they would in fact be excluded from that belief system. A true Christian cannot be selfish because their beliefs do not allow for it, there are no such restrictions for the faithless. Now, as for your points on the spreading of enlightenment, charity etc; you are again presuming that your rationally-based morals are correct (indeed existent at all). I do not see why I must concede this point to have an honest debate, and to be honest I could not argue for the alternative with any conviction.

This is absolutely incorrect, and I can prove that. If I give a kidney to save a little girl's life, and I don't believe in God, am I bereft of morality? I believe you must retract this statement. It's not offensive to me, it is simply wrong, and it is so patently and obviously wrong, that you must agree or I do not believe you're being honest.

I have tackled this issue in my second paragraph above.

Only your God can judge how moral I am, or is that not what you believe? This is another flaw with absolutist faith in religion; you refuse to believe I can be moral without your God, and you judge me as a person, rather than debate the concepts of faith and reason. We are talking about the intrinsic value of faith versus reason; I am not calling you irrational nor morally bankrupt, even when I say that absolutist faith can lead to the irrational. When you say that I cannot be moral because I don't follow your faith, you're judging me, and you're also wrong. Billions of people on this planet are moral without your God, and until you accept that, you will live with a prejudice about them.

I do not judge you as a person for it. My faith tells me to avoid such vanities, but it is also very clear, that if God were to judge us, we would all be utterly damnable (humanity as a whole). You have no power to be moral without God, no more than I do. I do not in any way see myself as superior to you, because I know I was equally depraved before God took the sovereign decision to reform me. I am totally underserving of such a priviledge, and yet in His mercy God has, I hope, bestowed it upon me (I can't be sure of my salvation unless I persevere to the end). I bear no prejudice against anyone, because I know that I deserve every bit of the judgement I would be pouring upon them.

Hence the problem of absolutist belief, of absolutist faith. You're willing to paint someone you don't even know as an immoral man because he doesn't believe in your God. That is the flaw of faith... you know without knowing, you believe without reason. This is prejudice without shame.

You seem to think of God as simply a personal being, removed from the laws of morality, and presumably people also, even regarding their salvation. This is Deism and not Christianity. If semeone does not believe in God, I can be sure they are immoral, because sin/immorality is nothing more than disbedience to God. Now, having made such a statement, no doubt an atheist would jump in with their comments of a vengeful, vain God. That is because they are treating Him like a purely personal being when that is not the reality. God is the source and nature of all good in itself, to transgress Him is to transgress His very ways, and the whole law of morality in the process. When a Christian mentions God, I get the feeling atheists only imagine the 'Father' part of the Trinity.

And as I said elsewhere, I do have reasoning behind my decision to put my faith in God (but I have total faith where gaps exist). And I explained the bit about prejudice on your previous point.

No, I am living by the laws of reason, of logic, of the fundamental reality of life; we all want to exist, we all want to live free, we all want to avoid pain and suffering, we all want our basic human rights protected, and I do not desire to harm or be harmed by anyone. I am not willing to break a code of moral values which I have assembled from logical and self-evident truths (those truths our Constitution of the United States was built upon) which I believe serves the best interests of all, even when it does not serve my personal self-interest. That is selfless rational ethics, and a completely godless form of ethics which does not allow me to murder or steal or rape. Then again, I would not desire to do so, but I follow the code of ethics even when I am upset or hurt or have been betrayed. I do not have absolute faith in my interpretation of logic and reason and morality, but I have a fairly good idea that if I stab someone, it will hurt; if I torture an animal, it will hurt; if I rape someone, it will hurt; if I betray, or lie, or cheat, it will hurt; and to inflict suffering or destruction upon others is the greatest sin against mankind. I serve the interests of all mankind, not my own. If it were necessary to throw myself on top of a bomb to save the life of someone who could cure cancer, I would. And I would not expect God to meet me in heaven, nor reward me.

I am the non-religious believer in morality, and my moral code is not rotten or selfish, sir.

Your Constitution was built upon :wink:

Now, what exactly was the purpose of that Constitution again? It was designed so that every man may be free to pursue happiness. It was (is... or was :evilgrin:) a nice practical idea, very suitable given the nature of American society in the time in which it was drawn up. But was it not designed to serve the individual? Is it coincidence that the US today, for all its relative societal harmony, has also one of the most individualistic cultures in the world? Where life is about how far you yourself can get along in the rat race? I could not think of a better example of living by the laws of consent, as opposed to a truly selfless existance in the servitude of a supernatural moral code.

As for your examples of serving mankind and jumping on the bomb, remember my previous points on charity and giving a kidney. Although this example is more absolute, maybe it is because the benefits to society would be so great, that our falsely altruistic genes would tell us to jump on the bomb, even though our consciouness, it if was able to think more efficiently without an ingrained subconsious respose, would not. Sometimes our conscious/subconcious don't work too efficiently together.

What was wrong with that? I see a disconnect between this statement and the next.

if you look like a moral person, act like a moral person, are effectively a moral person, and believe you are a moral person, then deep down, you are a human being trying to be moral. There is nothing wrong with that. And no matter what FAITH you have, deep down you are a human being. No amount of belief will change that. You cannot abandon your humanity.

What was wrong with being an superficially but not truly moral person (aka not actually being moral)? Well, the fact that it is not enduring for a start. The fact that the motives were fundamentally selfish. The fact that this form of morality is as fragile as the society it upholds, and that so long as one is unstable, the security of the other cannot be ensured.

As for abandoning your humanity, that is what my faith is all about. I grow weaker as Christ within me grows stronger. You state in a matter-of-fact fashion that humanity is a good thing; I disagree, that is largely what we are debating about.

We will never be perfect. And humanity is not rotten to the core, it is human. And you are also human, and you will never escape from that, no matter how many bibles you read, nor prayers you pray, nor rituals you perform. You will always be a flawed human being, and just because you have added religious faith, that does not make you inherently better than anyone else. It is your works in this life and the virtues you believe in which make you moral. Not God.

That paragraph was really just a serious of assumptions that I have contested throughout my response. Although I would like to point out that I am in no way inherently better than anyone else, only the purpose I serve is.

Banquo's Ghost

03-23-2009, 16:49

As much as I appreciate the spoiler jokes, let's not ruin the original premise of the thread by distraction.

Any further off-topic posts will be deleted. (This is not in spoilers to ensure all read it).

:bow:

Meneldil

03-23-2009, 17:33

This at first interesting discussion unhappilly turned into yet another attempt by religious people (here Rhyfelwyr) to prove that they (he) hold(s) the moral high ground, and that all unreligious people are in fact selfish idiots.

Now, mind you, this kind of behavior really turns me down, but I'll try to stay polite and answer in a gentleman-like fashion.

You would be incorrect to say that a single Christian is trying to get into Heaven.
That's what millions of christian have tried to do, and are trying to do everydays. They probably think they're just as christian as you are.
Are you going to say that they're actually not real christians? That you are more christian than they are?

Now, you say that "faithless are rotten and selfish". What I see is that, according to your own views, faithful people *have* to be moral. If they aren't, they won't be allowed in the Great Final Party, or aren't true believers. They have no freaking choice (and that is entirely based on your manichean view of the world. I know a lot of christians who consider themselves to be good christians and who aren't parangon of morality).

On the other hand, some faithless people such as me, deliberatly made the choice to be moral. This choice, even though it - as you point out - involves some social benefits (such as, in no particular order, being considered a nice and reliable person, encouraging order, etc.) also brings in a lot of drawbacks (playing by the rules when others don't, not getting laid with everybody, etc.).

In that way, I could say that atheists are in fact much less selfish than religious people. I could say that atheists are superior, or more intelligent, because they reached morality by themselves, and not accordingly to what I consider to be fairy tales, but in fact, I don't really give a damn: whether you've decided to be moral to respect the teachings of a book written centuries ago or because you're mum told you to be moral is all the same.

Then, you could obviously say that your morals are better than mine, that religious morals are the only true ones, that morals are reliable only when they're absolute morals. We could argue endlessly about that, as you've done so far with ATPG. Thing is, different christians have different morals. Which ones are the correct ones, which ones are wrong ?

Ultimately, you're view is flawed for a simple reason. Let's consider 2 people. A is a faithful and respectful christian. B is a faithless yet respectful atheist.
In his life, A is a nice guy, respecting the teachings of his book. He does good around him. He helps the poor, protects his family, etc.
In the same timespan, B does all of these things but in an even more generous way than A.

Now, according to you, B's behavior would only be a way to selfishly protect his position in his world, to ensure social order. No matter what his reasoning actually is. Since it's not motivated by God, his action are 'roten and selfish'. You don't even want or try to understand his motives, discarding them as purely self-centered, consciously or not. Such blindness is quite disapointing.

Needless to say that if you're god think the way you do, I'm glad I don't believe in him.

Sorry for this long rant, I just found Rhyfelwyr's position to be quite irking and offending. I'll now leave this topic to ATPG and his opponent.

Askthepizzaguy

03-23-2009, 17:55

I would like to say that I invited Rhyfelwyr to state his viewpoints clearly, and that his viewpoints are welcome here in this thread. I vehemently disagree with them, and I hope that any who find them offensive, please do not let it get to you. Decline to post or read further if it reaches your emotions and causes suffering. That is not what this thread is about.

Meneldil, I appreciate what you're saying, and I agree with much of it. Don't let it get you down. :bow:

Rhyfelwyr: I will read again, and respond to your post in relatively short order. In the meantime, I would like to state that I feel you have in many instances undermined your own position, and I will demonstrate how this is so. Give me some time to respond in an articulate and respectful format. I appreciate your debating me here.

And to all- we are colleagues and friends, and not opponents. We advocate different ideas, and I believe only one idea can triumph, but they should be able to coexist.

Rhyfelwyr

03-23-2009, 18:08

What faith (or lack of it) doesn't claim to hold the moral high ground? You (Melendil) said as much when you suggested only some people are capable of developing morals through their own good natures, whereas some of us must rely on faith in the supernatural. You believe certain people are inhererently better than others, and their morals reflect that. I believe that no one person is better natured than another, and it is only by putting our faith in something greater than ourselves that we may serve a good cause.

As for your comments on the selfishness of Christians in wanting to get into Heaven, I say you are correct. If they are in it to get into Heaven, they are not Christians. I wonder, of how many Chrisitians you have asked, the number which told you they served God so they could get into Heaven?

And I don't think of myself as the peak of morality. In fact, I think that by my own rational capabilities, I would achieve no moral good. You are telling me that I think I am superior to the faithless, and you are completely missing the point in Christianity. It is the idea in which I have faith which I hold to be superior, not myself. And it is only by faithfullness to that idea that I can achieve any good, not by my own corrupt nature.

I am sorry that my message is harsh and offensive. But I beg you to remember that every charge I make, for the sake of this argument, against the 'faithless', I would make against myself also. If I compromise upon my ideals in this respect, then I will break Christianity down through relativism until it comes to mean absolutedly nothing.

I am not the one claiming to be superior to anyone else.

EDIT: And as for your "typical religious people taking the moral high ground" comment, that is only one way of viewing the situation. Indeed, the matter is central to my entire argument, as you well know. And yet there is another way of viewing it: as usual atheists just cannot take the offensive message which Christianty bears. You are a sinner, do you want me to pretend you are not?

That is obviously my view. And I think you should stop being so offended, since you are the only one who has claimed moral superiority in this argument.

Askthepizzaguy

03-23-2009, 18:57

Quote: RhyfelwyrWhat faith (or lack of it) doesn't claim to hold the moral high ground? You (Melendil) said as much when you suggested only some people are capable of developing morals through their own good natures, whereas some of us must rely on faith in the supernatural. You believe certain people are inhererently better than others, and their morals reflect that. I believe that no one person is better natured than another, and it is only by putting our faith in something greater than ourselves that we may serve a good cause.

As for your comments on the selfishness of Christians in wanting to get into Heaven, I say you are correct. If they are in it to get into Heaven, they are not Christians. I wonder, of how many Chrisitians you have asked, the number which told you they served God so they could get into Heaven?

And I don't think of myself as the peak of morality. In fact, I think that by my own rational capabilities, I would achieve no moral good. You are telling me that I think I am superior to the faithless, and you are completely missing the point in Christianity. It is the idea in which I have faith which I hold to be superior, not myself. And it is only by faithfullness to that idea that I can achieve any good, not by my own corrupt nature.

I am sorry that my message is harsh and offensive. But I beg you to remember that every charge I make, for the sake of this argument, against the 'faithless', I would make against myself also. If I compromise upon my ideals in this respect, then I will break Christianity down through relativism until it comes to mean absolutedly nothing.

I am not the one claiming to be superior to anyone else.

EDIT: And as for your "typical religious people taking the moral high ground" comment, that is only one way of viewing the situation. Indeed, the matter is central to my entire argument, as you well know. And yet there is another way of viewing it: as usual atheists just cannot take the offensive message which Christianty bears. You are a sinner, do you want me to pretend you are not?

That is obviously my view. And I think you should stop being so offended, since you are the only one who has claimed moral superiority in this argument.

Just some quick points:
1. You claim your faith holds the moral high ground, and are therefore enlightened and better than us in the eyes of God. Then, later, you claim that you are not the one claiming moral superiority. This is a contradiction.

2. You say that no person is better natured than another; so one might suggest that a serial rapist is the same as the firefighter which saves your life, according to your philosophy, if they don't believe in God. In fact, if your serial killer confesses his "sins" to God, he gets into heaven and the firefighter does not, no matter how pious he was or how loving towards his children he is. These and many other examples demonstrate the one-track thinking of the faithful; being solely concerned with faith and not in morality is... (searching for a polite word) .... disconcerting to me. You claim morality must inherently flow from faith in the supernatural, but you have failed to demonstrate this conclusively in any way. If God judges us based on faith, not on our hearts and our deeds and our purer desires, and lumps us together with the sick rapist because we didn't receive communion or go to confession, I would never wish to enter this heaven of his.

3. Only putting faith in something greater than ourselves can we serve a good cause. What about virtue itself? Generosity? Kindness? Faithfulness? Must all virtue flow from belief in God, and if so, why are so many "Godly" folk such terrible sinners? I see no difference between us. It is an imaginary one.

4. Worst of all, I am seen as being beneath the pious, whereas the pious are not seen by me as being less than me. I must tolerate prejudice, but I do not appreciate it.

5. If your belief mandates that we are all sinners in the eyes of God, then what is the difference between us? Belief in your God alone gives you the ticket to heaven? And if so, why is that not precisely the selfishness I described regarding religious faith?

6. Virtue existed before religion. Religion simply took credit for it. Sin existed after religion, and within religion, and religion overlooked the fact that it promised to eliminate it or combat it more effectively than logical and rational morality, and failed.
A few reactions, off the cuff. I still have to respond to the prior post of yours. :laugh4: This is getting interesting. However, it could get heated, and I warn all participants, and indeed, chastise myself, not to allow emotions to derail this thread. I believe it has more merit than to be locked over a temper tantrum.

:bow:

Rhyfelwyr

03-23-2009, 21:04

[SPOIL]1. You claim your faith holds the moral high ground, and are therefore enlightened and better than us in the eyes of God. Then, later, you claim that you are not the one claiming moral superiority. This is a contradiction.

Absolutedly not. I would rather not imagine how I look in the eyes of God. Am I 'enlightened' as you term it? Yes, but only so far as Christ triumphs over my own will. You are treating salvation as if it comes from myself or even for my act of having faith; it does not. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of good works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9) There is no point where I can claim to be superior to you. Of course, God is, and that is why I believe that my faith in Him gives my perspective the 'moral highground'. You are transferring my views on our ideologies down to the personal level, which is not reflective of anything I have said.

2. You say that no person is better natured than another; so one might suggest that a serial rapist is the same as the firefighter which saves your life, according to your philosophy, if they don't believe in God. In fact, if your serial killer confesses his "sins" to God, he gets into heaven and the firefighter does not, no matter how pious he was or how loving towards his children he is. These and many other examples demonstrate the one-track thinking of the faithful; being solely concerned with faith and not in morality is... (searching for a polite word) .... disconcerting to me. You claim morality must inherently flow from faith in the supernatural, but you have failed to demonstrate this conclusively in any way. If God judges us based on faith, not on our hearts and our deeds and our purer desires, and lumps us together with the sick rapist because we didn't receive communion or go to confession, I would never wish to enter this heaven of his.

Believing in God does not make you inherently better than anyone else, as I have argued above. Neither will a serial killer find himself in Heaven just because he confessed his sins, for that would be attaining salvation through works. Now, to suggest that I am solely concerned with faith and not morality is false, because my faith is in that morality, and to transgress that morality would be to betray my own faith (we discussed this in detail earlier). Also, I have argued extensively that if morality is to be universal and unchanging, it must be supernatural. You said yourself that you are 99.99% sure that this universal truth does exist. I don't think you have defended your side of the claim, on how that this could stem from the individual. God does NOT judge us on faith or confidence in his existence (otherwise Satan would have a free ticket to Heaven). No, He will judge us based on our hearts (since actions are secondary, I doubt He would judge on those specifically). Although we are generally known by our fruit. And for the sick rapist to enter Heaven, he must be born again, genuinely realising the state of His sin, and giving his obedience to God and His ways accordingly. In this respect, he is no different from the rest of us. It is simple. My (unorthodox) view is that people pay for their sins in Hell, and then die a second death, an 'atheist' style death (generally speaking) - eternal suffering makes no sense to me, and having studied the scripture I have come to doubt this widely-held notion. If you become a Christian, then Jesus paid for your sins, and you are therefore seen as 'fit' to enter Heaven.

3. Only putting faith in something greater than ourselves can we serve a good cause. What about virtue itself? Generosity? Kindness? Faithfulness? Must all virtue flow from belief in God, and if so, why are so many "Godly" folk such terrible sinners? I see no difference between us. It is an imaginary one.

Virtue doesn't flow from belief in God, it flows directly from God Himself, belief just bridges the gap. Godly fok still sin because they maintain barriers in their heart against Jesus, they just don't let go, they don't fully lay their burdens at Christs' feet. And though you may see the difference between us as being imaginary, that is what we are here to debate!

4. Worst of all, I am seen as being beneath the pious, whereas the pious are not seen by me as being less than me. I must tolerate prejudice, but I do not appreciate it.

No, the 'pious' are just as lowly as anyone else, as I have consistently argued. I am just as terrible a sinner as you. What I want is for you to let Jesus pay for your sins, rather than deny them.

5. If your belief mandates that we are all sinners in the eyes of God, then what is the difference between us? Belief in your God alone gives you the ticket to heaven? And if so, why is that not precisely the selfishness I described regarding religious faith?

I can only enter Heaven if I have been forgiven for my sins. The first step to tackling a problem is admitting that you have one. As I have (gradually) become aware of the state of sin I used to live in, I realise just how greatly I transgressed against the moral code which I now try to keep. Was I selfish? To be honest, the issue never crossed my mind, because I was so shocked at what I was, I believed that even the fires of Hell seemed to good for me. I honestly just wanted to curl up and die, disappear out of all existence, past and present, all traces removed. But that would have been a cop-out, and now, by God's grace, I pray that He will use me to serve a better purpose.

6. Virtue existed before religion. Religion simply took credit for it. Sin existed after religion, and within religion, and religion overlooked the fact that it promised to eliminate it or combat it more effectively than logical and rational morality, and failed.[/QUOTE]

You are talking about organised religion and its failures. We have never seen a 100% 'godly' society, and so we will never know through such means, whether or not religion can combat sin as it promises. Certainly, you would have found a lot less of it in, say, 17th century England/Scotland, than you do today.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

03-24-2009, 00:49

You cannot say that all (or indeed any) Christians are trying to get into Heaven.

It would certainly be unfair to say all, but it can be argued. Using some Christian theology, all humans are automaticly sinners and thus selfish beings. All we can do is try and counteract this natural tendency. Christians will follow Christian teaching in order to do this. In order to get into Heaven you must follow Christian teaching and avoid sin. Ergo all Christians are trying to get into Heaven, as a by-product of their beliefs.

It is fairer to say that some Christians do hold beliefs for selfish reasons. You say further on that any who do are not Christian. They will hold beliefs to the contrary (that they are). I think if you removed everyone who held selfish beliefs, or 'wrong beliefs' from the Church, you would have a very small congregation.

What was wrong with being an superficially but not truly moral person (aka not actually being moral)? Well, the fact that it is not enduring for a start. The fact that the motives were fundamentally selfish. The fact that this form of morality is as fragile as the society it upholds, and that so long as one is unstable, the security of the other cannot be ensured.

As for abandoning your humanity, that is what my faith is all about. I grow weaker as Christ within me grows stronger. You state in a matter-of-fact fashion that humanity is a good thing; I disagree, that is largely what we are debating about.

So you contend that any non-Christian has no moral basis for anything..... You claim that faith is a necessary condition for morality....... You justify this claim by attributing our seeming moral character as due to societal needs, and subconcious ideas.....

I'm sorry but I don't follow. Say I was to have a miraculous conversion to Christianity tonight, I wake up I have faith. I don't change anything I do (except maybe go to church on a sunday instead of playing football). You are arguing that that makes me moral. The addition of blind faith improves me as a person.

In that case what would you say about Apostates, those who have faith, are good and moral people, and then leave faith behind. If they continue to be a good (and moral) person, do they still have morals?

I'm sorry if I sound a little worked up, that certainly isn't my intention, but you have just insulted a very large proportion of the world's population by claiming that they cannot ever be moral people....

Askthepizzaguy

03-24-2009, 02:53

Rhyfelwyr

03-24-2009, 14:10

Hmm need three characters to post the message it seems...

It would certainly be unfair to say all, but it can be argued. Using some Christian theology, all humans are automaticly sinners and thus selfish beings. All we can do is try and counteract this natural tendency. Christians will follow Christian teaching in order to do this. In order to get into Heaven you must follow Christian teaching and avoid sin. Ergo all Christians are trying to get into Heaven, as a by-product of their beliefs.

It is fairer to say that some Christians do hold beliefs for selfish reasons. You say further on that any who do are not Christian. They will hold beliefs to the contrary (that they are). I think if you removed everyone who held selfish beliefs, or 'wrong beliefs' from the Church, you would have a very small congregation.

You are confusing cause and effect here. Just because we must be born again (become Christians) to have our sins forgiven and enter Heaven; does not mean that that is the reasoning behind our faith. We are not born again because we want to enter Heaven. When you are born again then you should not care about yourself, but wish to serve God only.

I also think that you may be surprised if you ask a congregation of their views on this. The gate is narrow, but I wouldn't say it's quite as narrow as you think. Also, 'wrong beliefs' do not exclude you from the church (small 'c'). A lot of Christians (quite likely including myself) are misguided in their doctrinal beliefs, there is only one things which they must share - the will to serve God.

So you contend that any non-Christian has no moral basis for anything..... You claim that faith is a necessary condition for morality....... You justify this claim by attributing our seeming moral character as due to societal needs, and subconcious ideas.....

I'm sorry but I don't follow. Say I was to have a miraculous conversion to Christianity tonight, I wake up I have faith. I don't change anything I do (except maybe go to church on a sunday instead of playing football). You are arguing that that makes me moral. The addition of blind faith improves me as a person.

No, it is not the faith that makes us moral, but the thing in which we place our faith. Faith does not 'improve' you, Christianity is not about self-help. It is about denying yourself to serve a greater purpose. As for the example you gave of your works; do you think people should be judged by their actions or their intentions?

In that case what would you say about Apostates, those who have faith, are good and moral people, and then leave faith behind. If they continue to be a good (and moral) person, do they still have morals?

I would say there is no such thing. If you are saved, then you will persevere to the end. If people who appear to be saved apparently lose their faith, then they didn't really have it in the first place.

I'm sorry if I sound a little worked up, that certainly isn't my intention, but you have just insulted a very large proportion of the world's population by claiming that they cannot ever be moral people....

I have given no insult that I would not level against myself also. I think people here are focusing too much on the person. It is the beliefs that I hold to that I believe to be superior, not myself. I do not even consider myself better than anyone for holding those beliefs, because belief in itself does not make you moral. Salvation comes from above.

Ignoramus

03-27-2009, 12:25

This is really good discussion. While I don't have the time at the moment to read through everything and wade in, is it possible to do something like this with teams of people?

Fragony

03-27-2009, 13:07

I am loving this discussion.

We have a strong disagreement on Rhyfelwyr's argument that anyone who is not Christian is inherently amoral. However, after given an opportunity to retract the statement, he has not. As such, there is no point in haranguing him over it. What's said is said, what's done is done. There is more to discuss; I have to do some reading and get back with the rest of my response to Rhyfelwyr's post number 37. The latter section needs examination.

I agree with Gaius Scribonius Curio's previous post. But, moving on.

That's a bit easy, you asked for a discussion on faith there you have it, why should he retract that statement. Going to borrow something from Marsilio Ficino; logic and science are insufficient for the greater picture, because man is capable of truly loving something that he cannot truly understand. I am going to hell just like you, you bring the sausages I'll bring the barbeque-sauce going to be awesome.

Ignoramus

03-27-2009, 23:17

That's a bit easy, you asked for a discussion on faith there you have it, why should he retract that statement. Going to borrow something from Marsilio Ficino; logic and science are insufficient for the greater picture, because man is capable of truly loving something that he cannot truly understand. I am going to hell just like you, you bring the sausages I'll bring the barbeque-sauce going to be awesome.

I must respectfully point out that if you indeed go to Hell, you won't find it awesome.

Askthepizzaguy

03-27-2009, 23:25

I am taking a break, and hopefully we both will come back at this refreshed and feelin' fine. Me is juggling too much at the moment.

Rhyfelwyr

03-27-2009, 23:47

I am taking a break, and hopefully we both will come back at this refreshed and feelin' fine. Me is juggling too much at the moment.

To be honest, I really need this break from serious discussion as well.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-28-2009, 04:40

As both of the principals have requested a break -- and to encourage the seconds from over-indulging in spam, I will close this thread for the moment. It will be re-opened at the request of either of the principals, and I'll bump it to keep it easily readable for a few days if necessary.

Good discussion, well handled.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-29-2009, 04:47

As per request from one of the principals. Open for business.

Askthepizzaguy

03-29-2009, 21:10

I shall attempt to proceed in three parts.

Firstly, Rhyfelwyr seems to believe any non-Christian is going to burn in hell. If this is incorrect, please disregard. I must challenge this assertion as being fundamentally flawed, in my opinion.

Secondly, Rhyfelwyr believes that morality flows solely from faith in his idea of God, and no one else's idea of God. I must also challenge this assertion, indeed any assertion that faith alone will bring us wisdom or enlightenment, which is perhaps the most important point of my entire argument.

Thirdly, I will finish responding to his post I believe it was 37, and then offer my counter-argument that faith does not create morality, nor does religion.

Askthepizzaguy

03-29-2009, 21:53

I will do these in separate posts, so as to make it easier for Rhyfelwyr to link to these arguments and quote the pertinent sections. If this is unacceptable, the Moderators can merge them.

Warning: This is a direct criticism of Christianity. Please do not read if you might find it offensive. The criticism is regarding how just a God can be if he allows people to burn in hell.

If only Christians can enter heaven, then many great people all throughout history and before Christianity came about will all be burning in hell. That's quite unfair, especially for such a kind and loving God. A person is born before Christ, or after Christ, and does not hear his message, and therefore has no ability to convert to Christianity; therefore they will burn in hell no matter their heart or mind or deeds in this world? What about Christians who did awful, awful things, but later relented and decided to turn to God, perhaps too late to wash away their crimes? A drug dealer whose wares resulted in the overdose deaths of a dozen or a hundred people in his life, who steals and is part of a gang, and contributes nothing but suffocating despair and death to this world, on his deathbed truly sees the error of his ways, and then gets into heaven, but the pious, loving, and saintly man who happens to be a Buddhist will burn in hell?

I don't much care for that viewpoint. This just and loving God you speak of is nothing of the sort, if this is the case. He's inherently unjust, hateful, wrathful, jealous, spiteful, and the most destructive thing imaginable. Condemning good people to burn forever (or even for a while) in Hell, or leaving them out of Heaven at all, is a criminal action. This is not God you speak of, but the Devil, in the guise (a poorly constructed one, might I add) of some kind of perfect and saintly being of incredible mercy and wisdom. I see nothing compassionate or merciful about the hypothetical God who condemns 90% of all the souls who ever lived, regardless of how good they are, to burn in hell forever, simply because they didn't follow his "only son" and the resulting cult religion which followed. It was considered a cult of Judaism until it became a major religion. That's when it started flexing its muscle and overtook the Roman empire and persecuted the Jews and the pagans and later the Muslims. For two thousand years the Christian religion has engaged in sectarian wars, conflicts, and has been anything but peaceful or holy.

Individual people have been kind, but Organized Christianity, or many different subsets thereof, has been an enemy of all mankind, as has been any other religion which advocates sectarian conflicts or declares others to be infidels, and in so doing, causes war and genocide.

Also, which Christian faith gets into heaven? There are many different branches of Christianity. Orthodox/Eastern Christianity does not follow the Roman Catholic religion nor do they consider the Pope to be the correct heir to the legacy of Jesus. They have their own leaders and differing beliefs. As such, they are different from Catholicism. Will both Catholics and Orthodox Christians get into heaven, even though one of them has an incorrect interpretation of Jesus' message? They cannot both be correct, can they? And if so, if they are both incorrect or one of them is incorrect, and those people get into Heaven, then why not the Jews? They have basically the same beliefs, just a different "church" and view on Jesus, which there is a difference between Catholics' view on Jesus and also Orthodox views on Jesus. Because they are essentially the same religion, why would Jews all burn in hell, but not Catholics or Orthodox believers? What distinguishes them from one another?

What about Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? These are also branches of Christianity. Surely you believe that adding things to the Bible and modifying its message would be heresy, and as such, those followers of those religions would also have to burn in hell. Furthermore, all the Protestant divisions of Christianity, of which there are many, many, many; do they also burn in hell for believing something slightly different from you? If the password is Jesus, then anyone who believes in Jesus' divinity gets into heaven. And that would include Satan himself, an argument you yourself used earlier, regarding faith. Obviously, if someone believes in Jesus' divinity, that CANNOT be the only way into heaven, according to your own logic.

Bottom line: No one on this planet can say what God thinks. When they do, I consider them a madman, because no mortal has a 2-way telephone line to God himself. Anyone can come forward claiming they understand God, and almost every single time they do, that person is a sociopath or someone trying to gain wealth or power. there is a man living right now on this world who claims he is jesus christ, and he has his own church. Since he believes in the divinity of Christ and is acting in the name of Christ, does that mean he is following the correct faith? Or is he a heretic?

You must make a judgment call; does anyone who follows Christianity get into heaven, or just the morally pure? If you take the morally pure, then you must take non-christians. if you only take Christians, then there is only a Christian heaven, and from what I've seen, there must be segments of Christian belief which are left out. Obviously if someone believes that Jesus wants him to kill people, he's not being true to Jesus, so he's out, in spite of his belief in Jesus. Therefore, you have to pick and choose your Christians. Which Christians get into heaven? Now, you have entire blocks of Christianity not getting into heaven. The doorway to heaven is getting smaller and smaller. Soon, you will have to say that only one version of Christianity is correct, and when you do, you condemn 99.99999% of all people who have ever lived to die and burn forever in unrelenting, merciless agony.

That's if your kind and loving God would allow such an atrocity. That puts him about a billion times worse than any mass murderer who has ever lived. Now, this cannot be, if he is a kind and loving God. So, who gets into heaven? You have to judge people on their merits then, not their faith. Because the faithful can act in a very very horrendous way towards those they disagree with. So if you're judging people on their merits, you can no longer judge people solely on their faith. Which means, that you either make the above scenario even MORE selective, because you reject people with no merits but the correct interpretation, or you make the above scenario a LOT LESS selective, because you accept people on their merits above their religion.

As such, Non-Christians MUST get into heaven, or else, it is no such thing as heaven. To believe otherwise, you must believe that Adam, Eve, Moses, Abraham, and all those pre-Christians aren't getting into heaven, which goes against the Bible itself. So it seems the Bible says that non-Christians can get in. Maybe that only applies to the Before Christ era, but what about afterwards? Are all the native Americans who ever lived and died before meeting white people going to burn in hell because they were not fortunate enough to have lived on the correct side of the globe to have heard of Jesus? Are all of those God's creatures or not? And would God condemn all the Native Americans to burn forever because they were created too far away from his Son to hear his Son's message? And if so, isn't that God's fault, not theirs?

This God MUST ALLOW NON CHRISTIANS INTO HEAVEN or else he is inherently evil.

I contend there is no such thing as Hell, except that which is created by hateful people. And hate is often spread by those who believe that others aren't good enough to get into their idea of paradise. If not hateful, it is at best, a terrible prejudice, and at worst, something unspeakable.

Forgive me, but I needed to address this. And I am sorry, I know this will be offensive to some. That is why I put this in spoilers and gave it a big fat red bolded warning. This is the thread topic, faith versus reason, and I can reasonably deduce that faith in hell is unreasonable. Not that Christianity has nothing to offer, or that it is evil, or anything of the sort. But to claim that everyone besides a follower of Jesus will burn forever in agony, that is offensive to me. And since it is allowed to be spoken aloud here in the backroom in a dedicated thread for just that purpose, a rebuttal must be allowed, otherwise it is unfair to allow someone to call everyone else on earth potentially hellbound, and those statements must also be deleted.

I believe I made my case in a rational, impersonal, and objective manner. I do not believe it is written out of hate, nor do I believe that it is an inappropriate post. However, because of the strong argument I made here, it could be found offensive to some. As such, if this post gets deleted, I will ask that all posts relating to being burnt in hell must be deleted on the spot, end of story.

That is my view. I apologize if I have offended anyone; but hell offends me.

Strike For The South

03-29-2009, 22:33

If a man does not hear Christ's message than he is saved. If you choose to reject it than you will burn, it is that simple. Putting your own morals on Christianity does not work. Good deeds and bad deeds mean nothing when it comes to your judgement. Protestants and Catholics differ on the pomp and circumstance but did not add anything to the bible like mormons or Jehovah's hence the heresy.

You are making assumptions based on your own moral code and a flawed view of Christian theology. God gives us a simple command and we can follow it or not. My parents love me dearly but kicked me out at 18.

You also make no mention of The Devil, assuming this is merely an affair between God and his children is flawed. Hell offends you? Then accept Christ

Askthepizzaguy

03-29-2009, 22:41

Secondly, Rhyfelwyr believes that morality flows solely from faith in his idea of God, and no one else's idea of God. I must also challenge this assertion, indeed any assertion that faith alone will bring us wisdom or enlightenment, which is perhaps the most important point of my entire argument.

As I demonstrated in the above post; there are many, many different ideas of God, and I think no one man on this earth has it right what God wants of us. To believe that you understand the mind of God is to believe that you are God himself, or a living conduit between this mortal world and the eternal realm, which is an absurdity in my opinion, because belief in God does not mean you understand him, if he even exists.

Since no mortal man can claim to fully understand what God wants of him, even from reading the Bible, the mortal man MUST make his own judgments in this world about what is right and what is wrong. As such, there must be a rational basis for those judgments, or they are just random guesses. Reenk Roink may disagree with me on this or he may not, but I believe that a majority of people think that reason has a place in this discussion, whether or not we can fully define reason, or if we can ever be 100% reasonable. To be 100% unreasonable is to be considered crazy; how else would you define crazy? However the definition of rational or irrational is not the topic. Faith versus reason is; and if we assume that neither faith nor reason is completely rational, then we can continue and have a discussion. I prefer to have the discussion instead of getting bogged down in the semantics of things, and whether or not there is any epistemic merit in having the opinion that reason is more reasonable than having no reason at all, if others don't mind.

In order to hold a theory of what defines morality, you must first make a judgment on what you consider to be moral. To me, it is painfully obvious what is immoral and what is not immoral. Eating cheetos that you bought and paid for is not immoral. Stabbing an innocent woman in the face is immoral. We all know this, except the completely unreasonable people. Now, what is the inherent difference between the two actions?

One causes no suffering to anyone, anywhere, and feeds a hungry person, and also contributes to the economy. In moderation, this is not a problem. The other ends the life of an innocent person in a violent, senseless, painful, and traumatic way. It causes suffering and destruction for no reason at all. This is why I argue against those who argue that reason is not reasonable. Having no reason is the worst kind of being unreasonable, by definitions that cannot be challenged rationally.

So, we see the inherent definition of something immoral could be: Causes suffering and destruction without just cause. We can define just cause, and that is itself an argument which is actually more open to interpretation and debate, and it is a debate for the centuries, not an afternoon.

Stealing causes no destruction, other than it destroys the hard work of someone else to produce or obtain something legally and morally. But it does cause suffering to that victim. Hence, it should be considered immoral to do so. Are there exceptions? Perhaps, but they have to be very extenuating circumstances where there is serious moral basis for doing so, and there aren't many of those.

Nothing is so black and white and simple as saying something is immoral. The WHY is what I am concerned with. The faithful do not seem to be concerned with the WHY other than going so far as to say "God said so" or "it's in the Bible" which has no objective merit, because those aren't logical reasons to believe something is immoral. A more objective standard is called for, and that is why the government of my country, the United States of America, rejected the Bible as our Constitution and drafted laws which were created by religious and non-religious scholars, thinkers, philosophers, politicians, lawyers, judges, and farmers and poor people alike. We decided there was more merit in having a "larger view of the Force", so to speak.

Many of the greatest thinkers and founders of the United States, which was at least once in history a bastion of freedom, generosity, and moral leadership, in spite of its flaws, were not religious. They formed a moral philosophy based on reasoning and self-evident truths.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The nod to the Creator indicates we accept and welcome Godly folk, but it also says in our laws that belief in God is not necessary to be a viable upstanding member of society, and many of our laws do not come from God or the Bible, but from their own self-evident merit. Objective merit. Things which all of us sane, rational people, believe to be objectively true. There will always be those who disagree, but the vast majority of people believe that it should be illegal to murder someone; that does not have to come from the Bible to be true. That was a law or code before Christianity or Judaism came about several thousand years ago. When people murdered, even Godless societies condemned that person as a wanted criminal, and usually put them to death for their crime.

We've advanced far since then, but no religion can claim to have the monopoly on morality, and morality DOES exist independent of faith. If you want to call faith in reason a form of faith, you may do so, but reason allows for contradiction and growth, and faith holds fast to belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is brittle and inflexible, and "true" faith does not waver ever, not for science, not for reason, not for logic, not for the demands of societal pressure. Even the Chruches of Christianity have changed and evolved over the years to meet the demands of reformers within their own group (thank logic), so it is not a completely faith-based thing either.

When faith is contaminated by reason, it is no longer purely faith, but now it is opinion influenced by evidence, and so it is therefore no longer truly faith, but opinion coupled with what I would consider... stubbornness, to be frank. I looked for a less harsh word, but it's the only appropriate one.

Faith does not bend to reason. When it does, it is simply opinion, and a stubborn opinion at that. Those with stubbornly held opinions held back progress and science throughout the millennia, and when they finally caught up with science and reason and modern society, they took credit for morality and progress and condemned those who thought freely as heretics; never learning from their mistakes.

To this day, they continue to oppose rational reforms like allowing gay people the right to adopt. If they can have children, then they must be fit parents. As such, they must be allowed to adpot; there is no rational basis for denying this. There are those (Such as Bobby Jindal) who have a 100% stance on being anti-abortion, even in the cases of rape or incest or death of the mother. Those are legitimate stances to hold, but they are also based on the idea that we as a society should intervene between a doctor and a young woman and force her to have a child which could kill her, or force her to have a child from a rapist, or force her to have her own father's child against her will.

That intervention goes against the conservative viewpoint that there should be more freedom and less government; a direct contradiction of their own values. They pick and choose which values to have, depending on the circumstances. As such, they have no faith-based morality, only stubborn opinions which do not change in the face of reason or evidence or objective merit. I oppose such pseudo-faith.

Real faith would follow the Bible 100% in all cases, and there would be no intercourse before marriage, no lusting, no stealing whatsoever, no sins of any kind. Man is not capable of doing so, and even if they did, they would still be no better than the rest of us. They have to contribute something to society, not just sit in a room by themselves making sure not to commit a sin or God would punish them. Just being "good" isn't enough, to me. Do something with your mind and body, or stop consuming the resources of this planet, I say.

Not everyone can be perfect, and as such, you have to forgive others. In doing so, you've got to make a value judgment which behaviors can be forgiven. As such, you need a rational philosophy for deciding which behaviors to make illegal. As such, you can have religious belief, but you must have rational laws that apply to the real world based on reasoning, and a morality that is based on reason, and not faith in God. If this is possible, and it is, then morality does not flow from faith itself, but from reason, as I said.

You are making far more assumptions than I am, SFTS. And I made plenty of mention of the supposed devil. Religion is nothing but one big assumption, as is science, but science incorporates the idea that "you can be wrong". That is reason, which is radically different from faith.

Reason offends you? Then don't debate. Debate is a place for reason ONLY, not assertions that something must be true because God said so, when you cannot prove what God said.

Askthepizzaguy

03-29-2009, 23:14

Strike:

If a man does not hear Christ's message than he is saved.

So if I just close my ears and say "lalalalala" I am saved? What about those who did not hear Christ's message, but committed acts of unspeakable evil?

If you choose to reject it than you will burn, it is that simple.

I am glad you know so much about who is going to burn in hell. But I can counter that with: If you choose to reject reason, you will become very lost yourself, possibly even waste your life.

Putting your own morals on Christianity does not work.

Putting your own morals on me does not work.

Good deeds and bad deeds mean nothing when it comes to your judgement.

Not much of a judgment, then. If heaven is full of serial killers and hell is full of saints, I'd rather go there.

Protestants and Catholics differ on the pomp and circumstance but did not add anything to the bible like mormons or Jehovah's hence the heresy

That's historically false. Christians created the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) by adding to it and taking away parts they disagreed with, and it's been translated and mistranslated many times. There are many different versions of the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible), with books added or taken away from.

You are making assumptions based on your own moral code

As are you.

And a flawed view of Christian theology

Perhaps you are as well?

God gives us a simple command and we can follow it or not.

Which command is that, and how do you know for a fact it came from God?

My parents love me dearly but kicked me out at 18.

That has little to do with the discussion.

You also make no mention of The Devil

False. I made mention of "him" above in my other post.

Assuming this is merely an affair between God and his children is flawed.

You assume that it is flawed. You assume you understand God. You assume more than I do, and your assumptions are also flawed. Were I to apply your standards to the discussion, I could simply state as fact, and not my opinion, that your argument is false, without explaining why. But I use reason.

Hell offends you? Then accept Christ.

Nope. I don't believe in hell, I just find it offensive when people wish me to burn forever simply because I disagree with them.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-29-2009, 23:39

Pizza guy:

You have made many assumptions.

For example, you assume it is impossible to comune directly with the divine, you have no evidence for this. The best can be said is that direct communion is impossible. Further, not withstanding Strike's glibbness, you have produced an arguement which bears no relation to christian theology and does not engage therwith.

You are correct in that faith is unswerving, but you demand that we all be fundamentalists and hold all our doctrines on faith. Christianity is a reasoning religion, the creation of the Bible and the Canons were reasoned acts. You cited the wrong Council, as well, Nicea was not the point at which the Biblical Canon was agreed upon. In any case, the Canon was merely an attempt to divide those books whose authors could be reasonably accounted for, and those written by Anonomous.

Rhyfelwyr

03-29-2009, 23:47

Your post is not offensive, it is your opinion, and a reasonable one at that. However, I think my own viewpoint is not so philosophically unreasonable as you may think.

If only Christians can enter heaven, then many great people all throughout history and before Christianity came about will all be burning in hell. That's quite unfair, especially for such a kind and loving God. A person is born before Christ, or after Christ, and does not hear his message, and therefore has no ability to convert to Christianity; therefore they will burn in hell no matter their heart or mind or deeds in this world? What about Christians who did awful, awful things, but later relented and decided to turn to God, perhaps too late to wash away their crimes? A drug dealer whose wares resulted in the overdose deaths of a dozen or a hundred people in his life, who steals and is part of a gang, and contributes nothing but suffocating despair and death to this world, on his deathbed truly sees the error of his ways, and then gets into heaven, but the pious, loving, and saintly man who happens to be a Buddhist will burn in hell?

Jesus sacrifice is not limited in its effects to those who were saved after he died on the cross at Calvary. Look at Revelation 13:8 - "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world". Christianity is not necessarily about following the doctrine of todays churches, its about Christ paying for your sins - it is by that process that people come to have 'Christ in them'. You argue about people as if they are capable of doing good with good intentions, which is something I disagree with. And why do you have trouble with God forgiving people for their sins? Maybe you think only 'little' sins should be forgiven? Do you practice this belief in your own life? Nobody should be beyond forgiveness, in the eyes of God or anyone else for that matter.

Is this loving, saintly man you speak of perfect? Did he ever sin? If he did, how then could you argue that he is fit to enter Heaven in his present condition, bearing the heart of a sinner? Heaven wouldn't be Heaven if its inhabitants just sinned a little bit. Do you therefore think that God owes this man entrace to Heaven? No, God would be just in sending him to Hell. He will suffer according to his sins, and no more. I struggle to see why this is unreasonable. Without Jesus, we would all live our lives, commit our sins, pay for them, and then 'completely' die (according to my views, although even in the eternal hell model different levels of suffering are described, although I think the idea is flawed). This saintly man you speak of will suffer in Hell, but his suffering would pale in comparison to, say, that of Hitler (yay Godwin). The situation is founded on justice and is not unreasonable.

The good news is that God has chosen to save a remnant to have eternal life, to live as mankind in its sinless form. He will spare those whom He saves from the suffering they deserve, He will even grant them eternal life. He did not do this by tossing justice out the window (otherwise we would have sinners in Heaven), but He sent His son, part of the Godhead under the Trinity, to die on the cross for those people's sins. Perfect mercy, perfect justice.

I don't much care for that viewpoint. This just and loving God you speak of is nothing of the sort, if this is the case. He's inherently unjust, hateful, wrathful, jealous, spiteful, and the most destructive thing imaginable. Condemning good people to burn forever (or even for a while) in Hell, or leaving them out of Heaven at all, is a criminal action. This is not God you speak of, but the Devil, in the guise (a poorly constructed one, might I add) of some kind of perfect and saintly being of incredible mercy and wisdom. I see nothing compassionate or merciful about the hypothetical God who condemns 90% of all the souls who ever lived, regardless of how good they are, to burn in hell forever, simply because they didn't follow his "only son" and the resulting cult religion which followed. It was considered a cult of Judaism until it became a major religion. That's when it started flexing its muscle and overtook the Roman empire and persecuted the Jews and the pagans and later the Muslims. For two thousand years the Christian religion has engaged in sectarian wars, conflicts, and has been anything but peaceful or holy.

Again, why do you think that you do not deserve any punishment for your misdeeds? Or are you perhaps sinless? Why then do you think it is unjust that you should pay for those sins when you die? God does not punish all sinners equally for all eternally, when you go to Hell you pay for your sins, no more no less. Hardly unreasonable I think. All it does is threaten the atheist cop-out, the idea that when you die you're safe, you know longer need to worry about your misdeeds. Of course immoral actions have consequences in this lifetime, but in this unjust world that will not always be the case. The atheistic viewpoint of the world is one of chaos, where people may flee from the consequences of their immorality if they die before it reaches them.

And why give numbers of the amount of people saved. Does it have any bearing on God's justice or mercy? Surely justice would still be served, and it takes an infinite amount of mercy to save even a single soul (since mercy must reform the nature, and not just deal with actions as is the case with punishment)? Would the sitation be any differnt if 99% of people were saved and 1% not, or vice-versa? It is an irrelevance, God Has saved whom He will. You'll get different views on the figures depending on where you ask. A very liberal Christian might include people from various faiths, whereas a Jehovas Witness will cap Heaven's population limit at 144,000!

Individual people have been kind, but Organized Christianity, or many different subsets thereof, has been an enemy of all mankind, as has been any other religion which advocates sectarian conflicts or declares others to be infidels, and in so doing, causes war and genocide.

This is going into the realms of organised religion, a very seperate issue from the one at hand. However, I really think that if religion never existed, people would have butchered each other just as mercilessly. Of all the wars fought in the world so far, how many can you attribute to religion? A very tiny minority methinks, focused around watersheds eg the Reformation. Now, in those few cases, do you think religion was the sole or even dominant factor behind the outbreak of the conflict? Did it merely channel the direction which the conflict took? I will grant that religion can be a focal point of morale for troops during a war, but then again any ideology can fill that role nicely, and indeed would in its absence.

Also, which Christian faith gets into heaven? There are many different branches of Christianity. Orthodox/Eastern Christianity does not follow the Roman Catholic religion nor do they consider the Pope to be the correct heir to the legacy of Jesus. They have their own leaders and differing beliefs. As such, they are different from Catholicism. Will both Catholics and Orthodox Christians get into heaven, even though one of them has an incorrect interpretation of Jesus' message? They cannot both be correct, can they? And if so, if they are both incorrect or one of them is incorrect, and those people get into Heaven, then why not the Jews? They have basically the same beliefs, just a different "church" and view on Jesus, which there is a difference between Catholics' view on Jesus and also Orthodox views on Jesus. Because they are essentially the same religion, why would Jews all burn in hell, but not Catholics or Orthodox believers? What distinguishes them from one another?

The bottom line of Christianity is this - did Jesus pay for your sins (or at least, will you accept that payment)? All the faiths you mentioned fall within that category. You can derive whatever doctrines you like from your Biblical interpretations, but ultimately accepting that point is what it boils down to. Ultimately, only one set of doctrines can be correct. God won't abandon you because you're not an expert theologian and didn't understand every point of doctrine 100% correctly. No Christian has ever suggested such a thing (if any have they have been a very tiny majority, and just a bit misguided). Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, etc are seperated by their doctrines, but united by faith in Christ, and that is the crucial point. The Jews are of course different in that they do not recognise Jesus as 'Christians' do, but the Jews are elected to salvation under God's covenants, promised both an inheritance in this earth and in the one to come. From a Christian perspective, if we go into semantics, Jews could be said to be 'Christians', since ultimately Christs bloods covers their sins as it does for anyone else.

What about Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? These are also branches of Christianity. Surely you believe that adding things to the Bible and modifying its message would be heresy, and as such, those followers of those religions would also have to burn in hell. Furthermore, all the Protestant divisions of Christianity, of which there are many, many, many; do they also burn in hell for believing something slightly different from you? If the password is Jesus, then anyone who believes in Jesus' divinity gets into heaven. And that would include Satan himself, an argument you yourself used earlier, regarding faith. Obviously, if someone believes in Jesus' divinity, that CANNOT be the only way into heaven, according to your own logic.

Again, accepting Jesus and his payment for your sins is the bottom line. Some people say that Mormons and JW's are not Christian since they deny the Trinity, and cannot therefore understand the nature of Christ and his sacrifice (to clarify, the vast, vast majority of Christians are trinitarian). Personally, I disagree. I think the only mistake these cults made is that they tried to define the Trinity, which really is something that man cannot do very well. I bet if you asked any Christian they would not give you a fully satisfactory answer. And so, I would consider them to be Christian, albeit with some seriously bad doctrines.

Of course, it is not belief in Jesus that will 'get you into Heaven' as we put it for the sake of this discussion. It is the belief that he died for your sins, and the acceptance of that payment that counts. You don't just fly up to Peter when you die, say "Jesus", then walk through the gates. There's a lot more to it than that.

Bottom line: No one on this planet can say what God thinks. When they do, I consider them a madman, because no mortal has a 2-way telephone line to God himself. Anyone can come forward claiming they understand God, and almost every single time they do, that person is a sociopath or someone trying to gain wealth or power. there is a man living right now on this world who claims he is jesus christ, and he has his own church. Since he believes in the divinity of Christ and is acting in the name of Christ, does that mean he is following the correct faith? Or is he a heretic?

I don't disagree, nobody can comprehend the mind of God. What we can do is try to understand the scripture as best as our abilities allow. I think I know the man you're talking about, he's a very good con artist. His followers, on the other hand, may simply be misguided Christians - that happens sometimes. "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (Matthew 24:24)

You must make a judgment call; does anyone who follows Christianity get into heaven, or just the morally pure? If you take the morally pure, then you must take non-christians. if you only take Christians, then there is only a Christian heaven, and from what I've seen, there must be segments of Christian belief which are left out. Obviously if someone believes that Jesus wants him to kill people, he's not being true to Jesus, so he's out, in spite of his belief in Jesus. Therefore, you have to pick and choose your Christians. Which Christians get into heaven? Now, you have entire blocks of Christianity not getting into heaven. The doorway to heaven is getting smaller and smaller. Soon, you will have to say that only one version of Christianity is correct, and when you do, you condemn 99.99999% of all people who have ever lived to die and burn forever in unrelenting, merciless agony.

Being a Christians, however broadly we apply the brush, is what makes you morally pure. Becoming a Christian is a very rigid, black and white transformation, in that your sins are forgiven, pure and simple. However, the transformation of a Christians nature is a more gradual process, one in which you must endure to the end. We can only act as Christians insomuch as we deny ourselves, our own corrupt natures. Living a godly lifestyle is dependent upon breaking down the barriers in your heart and letting Jesus in. Then, he may shine through you. Achieving this is every Christians battle, bringing the transformation about is their tribulation. For many, their lack of success in achieving this within their lifetime will lead to many false accusations against Christianity as a whole.

And I did not say that those who appear to be misguided Christians are in fact not Christians at all, such as your example of the man who believes Jesus wants him to kill people. Of course, he clearly has not laid down all his burdens at Christs' feet, but that does not mean that his sins have not been forgiven. He is not being 100% true to the Christian faith, the problem is there isn't 100% Christ in him yet, though his sins have still been 100% forgiven. The way is narrow, but its not as narrow as you are making it out to be (not that it should matter anyway).

That's if your kind and loving God would allow such an atrocity. That puts him about a billion times worse than any mass murderer who has ever lived. Now, this cannot be, if he is a kind and loving God. So, who gets into heaven? You have to judge people on their merits then, not their faith. Because the faithful can act in a very very horrendous way towards those they disagree with. So if you're judging people on their merits, you can no longer judge people solely on their faith. Which means, that you either make the above scenario even MORE selective, because you reject people with no merits but the correct interpretation, or you make the above scenario a LOT LESS selective, because you accept people on their merits above their religion.

Allow what atrocity? Suffering in Hell? It was not long ago you were complaining of the unjustice of it all, and yet you seem to take issue with people paying according to their sins. Unless you mean the suffering on this earth, in which case it is precisely this attitude that caused the problem in the first place! Adam was made with the free will you demand, and yet look at the good that came of it! Makind cast into a fallen world, corrupt in nature and constantly fearing the judgement he deserves. And that is how the atrocities we know come to pass, this fallen world which arose from our free will, when man could do both good and evil by his own nature.

And the bit about entry into Heaven based on merit doesn't make sense, its certaintly not based on anything I've said. To an extent, we can look at people based on their fruit, but its hardly a fullproof measurement. God does not save people because they do good (otherwise they would not need a saviour in the first place!), he saves them through Jesus' payment of their sins. Works will follow as a result of a persons salvation, but only so far as they deny themselves and let Jesus transform their souls (need I whip out Ephesians 2:8-9 again!). No person will fully achieve that task until they enter Heaven.

As such, Non-Christians MUST get into heaven, or else, it is no such thing as heaven. To believe otherwise, you must believe that Adam, Eve, Moses, Abraham, and all those pre-Christians aren't getting into heaven, which goes against the Bible itself. So it seems the Bible says that non-Christians can get in. Maybe that only applies to the Before Christ era, but what about afterwards? Are all the native Americans who ever lived and died before meeting white people going to burn in hell because they were not fortunate enough to have lived on the correct side of the globe to have heard of Jesus? Are all of those God's creatures or not? And would God condemn all the Native Americans to burn forever because they were created too far away from his Son to hear his Son's message? And if so, isn't that God's fault, not theirs?

This God MUST ALLOW NON CHRISTIANS INTO HEAVEN or else he is inherently evil.

Again, I already explained that Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, his sins cover all those past, present, and future relative to the events at Calvary. For whatever reason, you are still arguing as if people deserve salvation. It would be an odd form of mercy for God to grant if people were entitled to it! Since all men sin (who would disagree, even if only to the smallest extent?), who then should not face the fires of Hell, where people suffer according to their sins? Geronimo and Crazy Horse deserve it no less than anyone who heard the Gospel. In His mercy God chose to save a remnant from the fates they deserve, that's what Christianity is about.

I contend there is no such thing as Hell, except that which is created by hateful people. And hate is often spread by those who believe that others aren't good enough to get into their idea of paradise. If not hateful, it is at best, a terrible prejudice, and at worst, something unspeakable.

What do we hate? The answer is nothing but sin itself. On the other hand, you argue as if you hate justice. By what reasoning did you come to the conclusion that you should get to die without paying for your sins? It would be no different than a criminal avoiding prison. According to Christianity, that criminal cannot escape. There's no hiding from justice, but by God's mercy it may just be the case that someone else already served his sentence for him. Of course, the extent of that sentence will depend on whether or not he was a petty burglar or a serial killer. His sentence would be relative to those crimes. Of course, Christs' sacrifice knows no bounds - He payed for the sins of the elect no matter what they were, for the grace of God is not dependent upon the pitiful actions of men. Humanity would face a sore prospect if it was.

Askthepizzaguy

03-29-2009, 23:49

PVC:

Pizza guy: You have made many assumptions.

Indeed. Everything that anyone says is an assumption. I don't see what the point is of pointing that out. Nothing you say is the word of God almighty either.

For example, you assume it is impossible to comune directly with the divine, you have no evidence for this.

Evidence of the impossible is impossible. It's not possible to prove something impossible through evidence, as as a person of faith, it amuses me when you ask ME for evidence.

The best can be said is that direct communion is impossible.

How would you know?

Further, not withstanding Strike's glibbness, you have produced an arguement which bears no relation to christian theology and does not engage therwith.

How so?

You are correct in that faith is unswerving, but you demand that we all be fundamentalists and hold all our doctrines on faith.

So you can be 100% faithful but disagree with the Bible?

Christianity is a reasoning religion, the creation of the Bible and the Canons were reasoned acts.

In your opinion. Why were they reasoned acts?

You cited the wrong Council, as well, Nicea was not the point at which the Biblical Canon was agreed upon.

Wrong council, but I was right about the fact that Biblical Canon was agreed upon by men in a board meeting.

In any case, the Canon was merely an attempt to divide those books whose authors could be reasonably accounted for, and those written by Anonomous.

I hope you understand I can't take your word on that. What about books that were written by known authors and still were banned from the Bible? Why did it happen centuries after Christ died? Why are there not more Books being added?

Nevermind, it's not particularly relevant. The discussion is about faith, and those faithful here have demonstrated that they wish to debate me using reason. As such, you need more in your argument than what you've provided.

Strike For The South

03-30-2009, 00:21

ATPG

I do not want you to burn in hell that is simply the path you have chosen. You seem to think faith and reason are mutually exclusive when they are not. How I spend two hours on a sunday has little effect on my reasoning capability. Christianity has been no more detrimental than communism, a theory made up good atheists.

Askthepizzaguy

03-30-2009, 00:55

Your post is not offensive, it is your opinion, and a reasonable one at that. However, I think my own viewpoint is not so philosophically unreasonable as you may think.

Jesus sacrifice is not limited in its effects to those who were saved after he died on the cross at Calvary. Look at Revelation 13:8 - "All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world". Christianity is not necessarily about following the doctrine of todays churches, its about Christ paying for your sins - it is by that process that people come to have 'Christ in them'. You argue about people as if they are capable of doing good with good intentions, which is something I disagree with. And why do you have trouble with God forgiving people for their sins? Maybe you think only 'little' sins should be forgiven? Do you practice this belief in your own life? Nobody should be beyond forgiveness, in the eyes of God or anyone else for that matter.

The above can be summarized as quoting the Bible and "I disagree", which is not an argument. I can quote non-theistic philosophers and theistic philosophers and have you debate them instead of me. In response to your questions, I have no trouble with God forgiving people. I have trouble with people's ideas about God being held as fact when they know full well they don't have all the facts. What I believe about sin is not the issue. Since my beliefs are not "kosher" to you, it makes little sense in sharing them. You already have all the answers, remember? 1 + 1 equals Jesus died for us. Jesus is the only answer you seem to care about. Which is fine; I don't think you really care about what I believe. I don't wish to share what I believe with you because, as an avowed Christian, you believe it to be damnable blasphemy anyway. I believe people should be forgiven, and that is why I don't believe in Hell. Your convenient theory of temporary hell is one of your own construction. Quote where in the Bible it conforms to your theory.

Is this loving, saintly man you speak of perfect? Did he ever sin? If he did, how then could you argue that he is fit to enter Heaven in his present condition, bearing the heart of a sinner? Heaven wouldn't be Heaven if its inhabitants just sinned a little bit. Do you therefore think that God owes this man entrace to Heaven? No, God would be just in sending him to Hell. He will suffer according to his sins, and no more. I struggle to see why this is unreasonable. Without Jesus, we would all live our lives, commit our sins, pay for them, and then 'completely' die (according to my views, although even in the eternal hell model different levels of suffering are described, although I think the idea is flawed). This saintly man you speak of will suffer in Hell, but his suffering would pale in comparison to, say, that of Hitler (yay Godwin). The situation is founded on justice and is not unreasonable.

1. No one is perfect
2. Everyone sins
3. I don't believe in Heaven
4. You would allow mass murderers into heaven and saintly people kept out, for lack of Christ.
5. In your opinion, God would be just in sending him to Hell. All your opinions are facts, and all my facts are opinions.
6. Why is an omnipotent superbeing sending people he created to burn forever in agony and despair because he created them imperfectly unreasonable? I don't know where to begin. I'll end by saying it's completely DEVOID of reason.
7. Without Jesus, I do just fine, and I die just like you do.
8. The saintly man suffers in hell... wonderful religion. :2thumbsup:

The good news is that God has chosen to save a remnant to have eternal life, to live as mankind in its sinless form.

Yay! Some of us will be spared from the next Holocaust!

He will spare those whom He saves from the suffering they deserve, He will even grant them eternal life. He did not do this by tossing justice out the window (otherwise we would have sinners in Heaven), but He sent His son, part of the Godhead under the Trinity, to die on the cross for those people's sins. Perfect mercy, perfect justice.

I disagree.

Since your faith and belief does not give reasons, I don't have to either. What a powerful debate we will have if we state our opinions without giving a reason. Faith leaves no room for debate.

Again, why do you think that you do not deserve any punishment for your misdeeds?

There is a disconnect here between what people want, and what is real. God is not real because we want him to be, hell is not, angels are not, and eternal life is not. It is either real or it is not. It is a false argument to argue that I must believe in heaven and hell, otherwise I feel no one deserves justice. What I believe has no bearing on whether or not there IS a heaven or a hell, and I happen to disbelieve in both.

Or are you perhaps sinless?

Red herring argument. I never said I was, in fact I said I was mortal and I made mistakes, too. Asking me this question is nothing more than a distraction. You want to frame the argument around whether or not I deserve to burn in hell or not, rather than the value of faith versus reason. When I never said that I was something, don't ask me if that's what I believe. I never said I was a magic leprechaun either, and if you ask me if I think I am, it's a red herring, and it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Why then do you think it is unjust that you should pay for those sins when you die?

What I want and what is real are two different things. I never said it was unjust, but even in wishing and praying that Adolf Hitler gets poked by a trident by Satan himself does not make it so.

God does not punish all sinners equally for all eternally, when you go to Hell you pay for your sins, no more no less.

Statement of fact, when it is opinion, and not supported by evidence.

Hardly unreasonable I think. All it does is threaten the atheist cop-out

What about letting Jesus pay for your sins isn't a cop-out? I, for one, would rather innocent people NOT pay for my sins. Who is more unjust?

the idea that when you die you're safe, you know longer need to worry about your misdeeds.

When you're dead, you no longer do anything, because you're dead. No matter what I believe, I have nothing to do with that, and it's not my fault that the universe is poorly run.

The atheistic viewpoint of the world is one of chaos, where people may flee from the consequences of their immorality if they die before it reaches them.

And? Is this world not chaotic? Do you really see Jesus saving millions of innocent people from dying of starvation? This world is not governed by any kind and loving, just God, and if it is, he's not doing his job as governor. Again, that's not my fault that the universe isn't run by a magnanimous being. I don't have to make the universe just and fair to prove my case that faith is blind and reason allows progress.

And why give numbers of the amount of people saved. Does it have any bearing on God's justice or mercy?

When billions of nice people burn in God's hell, yes it does. A just and loving omnipotent God couldn't just snap his fingers and cure us of our ills, he's got to torture us in the most unenlightened manner imaginable forever and ever? (or whenever... any of it is torture and even us mortals think that's just plain wrong, sinners or not)

God is cruel if he sends people he created to get tortured in an oven, for faults he created himself.

Surely justice would still be served, and it takes an infinite amount of mercy to save even a single soul (since mercy must reform the nature, and not just deal with actions as is the case with punishment)? Would the sitation be any differnt if 99% of people were saved and 1% not, or vice-versa? It is an irrelevance, God Has saved whom He will. You'll get different views on the figures depending on where you ask. A very liberal Christian might include people from various faiths, whereas a Jehovas Witness will cap Heaven's population limit at 144,000!

More of your belief, the content of which is not my issue. The fact that you don't admit you could be wrong is the problem.

This is going into the realms of organised religion, a very seperate issue from the one at hand.

Indeed.

However, I really think that if religion never existed, people would have butchered each other just as mercilessly.

Now they have even more reasons to hate one another. And if religion never existed, people would perhaps focus on finding a common morality, instead of condemning others to hell on the flimsiest case there is: Because God Said So.

Of all the wars fought in the world so far, how many can you attribute to religion?

Doesn't matter, a red herring argument. It's not the point. But if you look, I'd say 90 percent of all wars are motivated by religion, and all of them are motivated by unwavering belief, also known as faith.

A very tiny minority methinks, focused around watersheds eg the Reformation.

I could give you a list of wars based on religion, and you wouldn't like it. But again, red herring; it's best if we drop it.

Now, in those few cases, do you think religion was the sole or even dominant factor behind the outbreak of the conflict? Did it merely channel the direction which the conflict took? I will grant that religion can be a focal point of morale for troops during a war, but then again any ideology can fill that role nicely, and indeed would in its absence.

Yes, faith in any ideology, strong enough to warrant murder, is dangerous. Not just religion. That is why FAITH is the cause of all wars, not religion. Faith, and perhaps a small percentage, greed.

The bottom line of Christianity is this - did Jesus pay for your sins (or at least, will you accept that payment)? All the faiths you mentioned fall within that category. You can derive whatever doctrines you like from your Biblical interpretations, but ultimately accepting that point is what it boils down to. Ultimately, only one set of doctrines can be correct. God won't abandon you because you're not an expert theologian and didn't understand every point of doctrine 100% correctly. No Christian has ever suggested such a thing (if any have they have been a very tiny majority, and just a bit misguided). Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, etc are seperated by their doctrines, but united by faith in Christ, and that is the crucial point. The Jews are of course different in that they do not recognise Jesus as 'Christians' do, but the Jews are elected to salvation under God's covenants, promised both an inheritance in this earth and in the one to come. From a Christian perspective, if we go into semantics, Jews could be said to be 'Christians', since ultimately Christs bloods covers their sins as it does for anyone else.

I believe you dodged all my points that I made, and this reply is simply stating your opinions again.

Again, accepting Jesus and his payment for your sins is the bottom line. Some people say that Mormons and JW's are not Christian since they deny the Trinity, and cannot therefore understand the nature of Christ and his sacrifice (to clarify, the vast, vast majority of Christians are trinitarian). Personally, I disagree. I think the only mistake these cults made is that they tried to define the Trinity, which really is something that man cannot do very well. I bet if you asked any Christian they would not give you a fully satisfactory answer. And so, I would consider them to be Christian, albeit with some seriously bad doctrines.

Boils down to "I disagree" but you don't really say why.

Of course, it is not belief in Jesus that will 'get you into Heaven' as we put it for the sake of this discussion. It is the belief that he died for your sins, and the acceptance of that payment that counts. You don't just fly up to Peter when you die, say "Jesus", then walk through the gates. There's a lot more to it than that.

Opinion unfounded by evidence, not a rational argument for debate. There is no "why" here.

I don't disagree, nobody can comprehend the mind of God. What we can do is try to understand the scripture as best as our abilities allow. I think I know the man you're talking about, he's a very good con artist. His followers, on the other hand, may simply be misguided Christians - that happens sometimes. "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." (Matthew 24:24)

I think everyone is misguided, especially when they have unrelenting faith. But you do purport to understand what God wants from you, and more than that, you KNOW what he wants from you.

That's the scary part.

Being a Christians, however broadly we apply the brush, is what makes you morally pure. Becoming a Christian is a very rigid, black and white transformation, in that your sins are forgiven, pure and simple. However, the transformation of a Christians nature is a more gradual process, one in which you must endure to the end. We can only act as Christians insomuch as we deny ourselves, our own corrupt natures. Living a godly lifestyle is dependent upon breaking down the barriers in your heart and letting Jesus in. Then, he may shine through you. Achieving this is every Christians battle, bringing the transformation about is their tribulation. For many, their lack of success in achieving this within their lifetime will lead to many false accusations against Christianity as a whole.

Being a Christian is what makes you morally pure?

Why? This is more of your opinion unsupported by reason or evidence. As such, I cannot debate it, and I don't agree with it, and must ignore it for the sake of argument.

And I did not say that those who appear to be misguided Christians are in fact not Christians at all, such as your example of the man who believes Jesus wants him to kill people. Of course, he clearly has not laid down all his burdens at Christs' feet, but that does not mean that his sins have not been forgiven. He is not being 100% true to the Christian faith, the problem is there isn't 100% Christ in him yet, though his sins have still been 100% forgiven. The way is narrow, but its not as narrow as you are making it out to be (not that it should matter anyway).

You say much, but not why you believe 100% that you KNOW what God wants.

Allow what atrocity? Suffering in Hell? It was not long ago you were complaining of the unjustice of it all, and yet you seem to take issue with people paying according to their sins.

They ARENT paying according to their sins, they are paying for not being Christian! And I complain about injustice, but I never wished for an infinitely powerful eternal being to torture anyone. That's sickening to me. A person who stole a loaf of bread and never apologized for it and died without accepting Christ must burn in agony?

That's not justice, that's insane. In my opinion.

Unless you mean the suffering on this earth, in which case it is precisely this attitude that caused the problem in the first place! Adam was made with the free will you demand, and yet look at the good that came of it! Makind cast into a fallen world, corrupt in nature and constantly fearing the judgement he deserves. And that is how the atrocities we know come to pass, this fallen world which arose from our free will, when man could do both good and evil by his own nature

More of your beliefs, but not arguments supported by evidence, nor are they things which can be debated using reason.

And the bit about entry into Heaven based on merit doesn't make sense, its certaintly not based on anything I've said. To an extent, we can look at people based on their fruit, but its hardly a fullproof measurement. God does not save people because they do good (otherwise they would not need a saviour in the first place!), he saves them through Jesus' payment of their sins. Works will follow as a result of a persons salvation, but only so far as they deny themselves and let Jesus transform their souls (need I whip out Ephesians 2:8-9 again!). No person will fully achieve that task until they enter Heaven.

So he allows an innocent person to die, so bad people can live? Why doesn't he let the innocent people live, and the bad people die, if he is so just? It's a reversal of justice, it's taking injustice and calling it justice. And if he is so forgiving and merciful and benign, why does he torture his children?

Red herring anyway. Your religion is not on trial, your unrelenting FAITH in that religion, and the attitude that you KNOW that we will all burn in hell, for a fact, and that guides your actions on this earth, that FAITH is on trial here.

REASON is prosecuting it.

Again, I already explained that Jesus is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, his sins cover all those past, present, and future relative to the events at Calvary. For whatever reason, you are still arguing as if people deserve salvation. It would be an odd form of mercy for God to grant if people were entitled to it! Since all men sin (who would disagree, even if only to the smallest extent?), who then should not face the fires of Hell, where people suffer according to their sins? Geronimo and Crazy Horse deserve it no less than anyone who heard the Gospel. In His mercy God chose to save a remnant from the fates they deserve, that's what Christianity is about.

More of your religion which cannot be debated here using reason, because nothing you say is supported by facts, reasoning, or evidence other than "I know it to be true".

What do we hate? The answer is nothing but sin itself.

Then why do sinners get into heaven and pious men get burned and tortured by God? Because he decided he wanted them to have a loophole in logic and justice and let them in, as long as they accepted that this one innocent person died so that they could have a free pass, and those who did not believe in this story, which is very strange and absurd to some, and totally void of logic, will be tortured for being skeptical?

The hate is of skepticism. There is hate of being questioned and being forced to reason. There is hate in disagreement and dissent. There is threats that if you do not convert, you will burn forever. There is condescension that you know what is best for the rest of us. There is prejudice that everyone on earth besides Christians are worthless sinners who must burn forever because they aren't good enough to get into the group. There is no reason behind any of it, just faith... unrelenting, illogical, unreasonable, brittle, stubborn, and DANGEROUS faith.

And that has led to inquisitions and crusades and wars and genocide. Faith, not just Christian faith, ALL faith, in religion, in philosophies, in politics... if it is unwavering, unrelenting, stubborn, and unreasonable... all faith is dangerous and destructive, to thy self, to thy mind, and to thy neighbor.

On the other hand, you argue as if you hate justice.

I would rather there be justice, instead of eternal torture. Torture is not justice, it is vengeance and hate.

By what reasoning did you come to the conclusion

NO. By what reasoning did YOU come to the conclusion.

that you should get to die without paying for your sins?

Death ends all sin. Dead people commit no crimes. And torture is not payment for a sin. Torture is barbaric, even by lowly mortal's standards.

If God was just, fair, compassionate, and omnipotent, he'd STOP all of this suffering right now, and fix our minds so that we never WANT to commit evil actions, and he'd forgive EVERY sinner EVERYWHERE, and let us ALL into heaven.

That would be compassion. What you describe is the Holocaust, and it's not Godly at all.

It would be no different than a criminal avoiding prison.

No, it would be no different from a criminal who stole avoiding a medieval-style long and suffering, agonizing death without end.

According to Christianity, that criminal cannot escape.

According to death, he can't either.

His sentence would be relative to those crimes.

Where does it say that in the Bible? Isn't that just wishful thinking and opinion unsupported by reasoning and evidence, or it's own logic?

Of course, Christs' sacrifice knows no bounds

The boundary is, if you don't say the password "Jesus" you don't get into heaven.

More red herrings. The argument is about faith, and why it is dangerous to believe something 100% and deny that you could be wrong. It's dangerous, it's selfish, and it's like believing you are God yourself, which is a form of insanity. I admitted I could be wrong about my ideas about the world, but the faithful cannot. They claim to know for a fact what cannot be known for a fact, and that is madness.

Even what science considers it knows for a fact, it also considers it "up for grabs" if better ideas come along. Faith allows no such hindsight, or reasoning, or compromise, and it is not beneficial for mankind to believe it knows something that it does not know.

He payed for the sins of the elect no matter what they were, for the grace of God is not dependent upon the pitiful actions of men. Humanity would face a sore prospect if it was.

That is what you've argued. If I don't accept Christ, an action, then the debt is not paid. How convenient.

So Jesus did all of this, to pay for the sins of all mankind* with an asterisk.

Prove that Jesus is the Son of God, and that He said that You could only get into Heaven through Him. Since you cannot, further debate about the content of your faith is pointless. I am arguing that your FAITH, without DOUBT, is dangerous and wrong. We cannot know whose interpretation of the afterlife, if any, is correct until we die.

Innocent until proven guilty, is how it's supposed to work. From your religion, we are guilty until we say "Jesus", and then all is forgiven. There is no trial, there is no defense, but the punishment is eternal torture. That sounds about what you'd expect from the minds of people from 2000 years or 6000 years ago, but in today's world we should operate based on reason. Stop condemning people to suffer in eternal damnation for crimes you cannot prove, nor attempt to prove, they committed. Let your God handle that.

You can attempt to convert me but it will not work because I don't believe in the premise of a kind and loving God who tortures his children, and is merciful and compassionate, even when he makes them boil, because they didn't accept the rather hard to believe story that one man is the true child of God. It's not a very convincing story, and there is no evidence of it. What makes it different from the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun religion?

Would you like it if I told your children that unless they say "Kiss the Blarney Stone, praise the Lucky One" they will burn in hell forever and ever in a burning pit of agony, unless they accepted the Fire-Breathing Leprechaun as their Lord and Savior? I think you'd find it offensive, because it's clearly a bizarre story, and it frightens children, and it's terribly hateful, not based on morality at all.

Bottom line: Faith is not the source of morality, and here, it is a source of dangerous certainty, and prejudice towards all non-Christians. And it allows for sick evil people to "become clean" and enter paradise while otherwise nice people who didn't know the secret handshake burn in unforgiving torment forever.

Your beliefs about hell do not coincide with the Bible. As such, you've made your own judgments. As such, you are using your own mortal reasoning, just as I am doing; but you are certain you are right about a case without evidence, and in spite of the loopholes in it's own logic.

It's self-contradictory and it doesn't allow for being wrong, either. That's dangerous. And you believe it, but more than that, you KNOW it to be true, when you really don't.

According to an argument you yourself made several posts back, that would frighten you.

Askthepizzaguy

03-30-2009, 00:57

Strike:

ATPG

I do not want you to burn in hell that is simply the path you have chosen. You seem to think faith and reason are mutually exclusive when they are not. How I spend two hours on a sunday has little effect on my reasoning capability. Christianity has been no more detrimental than communism, a theory made up good atheists.

I don't believe you demonstrated any reasoning here, nor made a point I need to rebut. I'm sorry, but I don't see anything here that warrants a rebuttal.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-30-2009, 01:58

PVC:

Indeed. Everything that anyone says is an assumption. I don't see what the point is of pointing that out. Nothing you say is the word of God almighty either.

How do you know nothing I say is the word of God? In any case, I was merely making the point that your claims are as unprovable as any faith-based claims.

Evidence of the impossible is impossible. It's not possible to prove something impossible through evidence, as as a person of faith, it amuses me when you ask ME for evidence.

I'm not asking for evidence, I'm pointing out you have none. How can you make such a claim as that, have you tried to commune with God?

How would you know?

That should have read, "The best can be said is that proving direct communion is impossible." Sorry.

How so?

You have imposed a very narrow definition of doctrine on Christianity, even excluding Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses your presentation represents about 20% of the worldwide Christian community tops, and in reality probably less.

So you can be 100% faithful but disagree with the Bible?

Of course, if Biblical infallability isn't a part of your faith. You have imposed a doctrinal requirement that does not exist for one to be considered a Christian, it is a sectarian issue.

In your opinion. Why were they reasoned acts?

they used reasoned arguements, that were founded upon the assumption that God existed, was Good and was Almighty. Before you say that was unreasoned, I will point out that all arguements begin with assumptions about reality, and that emphatically includes science. If you want evidence of this I would suggest reading Augustine, Jerome, Gratian, Gregory, Rowan Williams, or John Paul II, Benedict is also supposed to be quite good but I haven't read any of his tracts.

Wrong council, but I was right about the fact that Biblical Canon was agreed upon by men in a board meeting.

"board meeting" completely misses the point, for starters Councils included hundreds of Bishops, Abbots, Deacon, Priests and Laymen at this time. Further, an ecumunical Council is as much a mystical and religious event as administrative. In any case, you are wrong because Biblical Canon developed over a period of time and the final Canon produced by Jerome has a long and murky history.

As far as I know the African Councils largely confirmed the prevailing view of the time, countering the anti-Semetic Canon. the only major point of contention was Revelations.

I hope you understand I can't take your word on that. What about books that were written by known authors and still were banned from the Bible? Why did it happen centuries after Christ died? Why are there not more Books being added?

The extant Gospels are all firmly placed in the 1st Century AD, there is no arguement about this even from atheistic theologians. By contrast, the written versions of Peter and Thomos have been dated to the 2nd-3rd Century AD philologically. The Canon was the statement of those books which the bishops were confident were second or third generation, rather than later. It is not some sort of exclusive statement about what has been said about God, that presentation is a very modern and exclusively Protestant concept.

Nevermind, it's not particularly relevant. The discussion is about faith, and those faithful here have demonstrated that they wish to debate me using reason. As such, you need more in your argument than what you've provided.

If you want to debate with me you should start a new thread, but don't do it before the end of Easter.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

03-30-2009, 02:11

PVC: There are many different levels of faith, ranging from the fundamentalist through to those who are not really sure but have faith in something. The problem that arises is that while all have some facet of faithfulness, there are many different interpretations of what faith should be held in. To use Christianity as an example (as I think the original topic was supposed to be generalised) there are varying ideas about the nature of God, the nature of the trinity, the nature of Jesus etc. etc...
The Biblical Canon may have been constructed with the use of Reason, but since God cannot be fully understood, there is a strong possibility that their reasoned approach failed and that they were completely wrong.

Everyone: The main sticking point here seems to be the idea that acceptance of Christian interpretations of events 2000 years ago are a pre-requisite to entering the Christian ideal of Heaven. This makes sense. ATPG, Christians around the world from theologians to run of the mill occaisionally go to church on a sunday people are going to believe this. While it isn't necessarily a requisite belief of their faith it is difficult to separate as otherwise a strong benefit of belief is then removed. I understand when Rhyfelwyr claims that many religious people don't believe for the benefits, but the fact remains that they are there and if you believe then they will be real benefits.

The main point that I disagree with is the idea that faith makes you morally pure. Now I have brought this up before but I don't see how belief in an essentially supernatural being can allow you to be moral, while non-belief automatically precludes you. While I accept that believers can say that is how God has ordained it, I would like to see some actual reasoning for this if possible (apologies Rhyfelwyr, but I can't see any in your previous replies... :bow:).

The fundamental problem in debating this point is that Faith and 'Reason', both rely on an absolute faith in the correctness of their cause, thus neither can be reconciled with the other...

Askthepizzaguy

03-30-2009, 02:11

PVC:

In another thread then, perhaps; after this discussion is complete. I would warn you though, some of your arguments are very much self-defeating, because I believe you asked twice already for proof that something is impossible, which is not possible to do using reason and logic.

Askthepizzaguy

03-30-2009, 02:17

The fundamental problem in debating this point is that Faith and 'Reason', both rely on an absolute faith in the correctness of their cause, thus neither can be reconciled with the other...

Indeed; many things have been said by Rhyfelwyr, very articulately and passionately, but I need reasons and I need the "why" answered. Not doctrine, or examples of his religion, but reasoned arguments independent thereof, from his own judgment.

Reason, GSC, does not have absolute faith in itself. I have said many times, reason is probably the correct route. But there is always that very very slim .00001% chance that something absolutely absurd could be the correct answer; such as the universe is really just another version of the Matrix. Or that we are all video game characters on God's Wii. Or that none of this is real.

Bottom line, is I allow for that possibility, but there is no reason to believe in any of it. I think that just based on one's on desire to stay alive, reason is better than blind faith. For example, if you believe you are part of the Matrix, why not shoot yourself in the chest to prove it? That would be an act of faith.

But reason suggests you doubt the possibility, especially when there is no evidence of it. Reason allows for the possibility, but does not force you to act on it.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

03-30-2009, 02:33

Clarification, I meant in the context of religious faith, to argue against it using 'Reason' is to have absolute faith in the reasoning you use against the existance of a deity, or anything supernatural. Not necessarily absolute faith in the correctness of your reasoning all the time. I'm not articulating this very well, but hopefully you can see my point.

Edit: After rereading I see your point, but allowing for the possibilty of being wrong doesn't mean much when you are arguing passionately against something.

Askthepizzaguy

03-30-2009, 02:39

Edit: After rereading I see your point, but allowing for the possibilty of being wrong doesn't mean much when you are arguing passionately against something.

Actually, in 8th grade, I was required to debate the point that women should not be allowed to vote, when it was not my actual opinion. I quite like the debate itself, and it serves (at least this one does) as a way to have a discussion between a religious person and a non-believer in an articulate and informative way, that allows both sides to express themselves without fear of ridicule or hatred because of it.

I quite like arguing for reason, because I do accept reason as being probably superior to faith, as the faithful believe that faith is superior to reason. However, I cannot know which is true, and I do enjoy the exercise of my mental faculties. Gotta keep the mind sharp, ya know.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-30-2009, 02:42

Askthepizzaguy

03-30-2009, 03:02

Pizza Guy, You have misaprehended my position here. You have made claims such as it being impossible to commune with the divine

Did I? State where I said this. I am a being of reason, and I never said communication with God was impossible. I said it was unlikely, in my opinion. And even if you think you've communicated with the divine, it's impossible to know that you have not hallucinated. Believing you know with 100% certainty the will of God is dangerous.

and then criticised your interlocutor for making similarily unreasonable assertions. I am not asking for proof, because I know there is none to be had. There is also no proof for Rhy to marshal in defence of the existence of heaven and hell.

I never asked him for proof of heaven or hell, because when death comes, there it is.

I asked him to defend WHY he believes that he KNOWS for a fact that God exists and what that God wants of him, when he has failed to demonstrate how he knows it for a fact.

Did God appear to him? Is he living in his closet?

As an aside, I am here a negative Theologian, so all my propositions are utterly self defeating. That is the point.

Okay. If you're done defeating yourself... :grin:

:bow:

In another thread, perhaps. Further discussions with me, PVC, should be done there or in private, if you please.

:bow:

Rhyfelwyr

03-30-2009, 13:40

ATPG, I have read your response and I will reply properly later. However, I really fail to see how much of your counter-argument was relevant to what we were discussing. Indeed, look at how you state what you are about to argue:

Firstly, Rhyfelwyr seems to believe any non-Christian is going to burn in hell. If this is incorrect, please disregard. I must challenge this assertion as being fundamentally flawed, in my opinion.

Now, I replied to all your points to show that my own views made philosophical sense when you claimed that they did not. And for whatever reason, the bulk of your counter-argument shot back to the original question in the debate, on the matter of faith versus reason, instead of actually adressing what I said. You asked for my own position on whether Catholics, Mormons, JW's etc were Chrisitian. And I duly replied, and yet for some reason you just complained that I was stating my opinion as fact, which is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the topics you asked me to reply to.

Basically, you said God is unjust ACCORDING TO MY BELIEFS, and I said He is not. Then, you completely ignored what I said and attacked me because my BELIEFS did not have proof. Irrelevant.

Also, YOU stated in your argument that religion causes wars and violence. When I contested this, you accused ME of throwing about red herrings and said it was all irrelevant.

And as for the issue of whether or not hell is eternal, I wish you would stop telling me that my doctrinal views are based entirely on my own logic and not in the Bible. Do you think I have not studied this issue? I will gladly debate you on it if you wish, although I don't think it's relevant to this debate.

Rhyfelwyr

03-31-2009, 00:08

ATPG, I feel that I can give no productive response to your latest counter-argument. You specifically asked me to defend the moral/philosophical validity of my beliefs, rather than the proof behind their existence. Since my response was to your own argument, which was in effect an opinion-based attack on the nature of God according to my beliefs; I cannot understand why you dismissed my own counter-argument on account of it being based on opinion and not fact. And when you claim I dodged the discussion by "quoting the Bible" and saying "I disagree", may I remind you that the scripture was only used to refute you own false assumptions about Christianity, and I only ever bluntly stated "I disagree" on one issue, which as I'm sure you remember we discussed in great detail earlier. So, unless you insist otherwise, I shall move onto the next part of the discussion.

As I demonstrated in the above post; there are many, many different ideas of God, and I think no one man on this earth has it right what God wants of us. To believe that you understand the mind of God is to believe that you are God himself, or a living conduit between this mortal world and the eternal realm, which is an absurdity in my opinion, because belief in God does not mean you understand him, if he even exists.

True. I have absolute faith in God's existence, however I do not have such faith in my doctrines or my own understanding of God's nature. I can use reason to help and understand the scripture, and to act in the appropriate manner because of it.

Since no mortal man can claim to fully understand what God wants of him, even from reading the Bible, the mortal man MUST make his own judgments in this world about what is right and what is wrong. As such, there must be a rational basis for those judgments, or they are just random guesses. Reenk Roink may disagree with me on this or he may not, but I believe that a majority of people think that reason has a place in this discussion, whether or not we can fully define reason, or if we can ever be 100% reasonable. To be 100% unreasonable is to be considered crazy; how else would you define crazy? However the definition of rational or irrational is not the topic. Faith versus reason is; and if we assume that neither faith nor reason is completely rational, then we can continue and have a discussion. I prefer to have the discussion instead of getting bogged down in the semantics of things, and whether or not there is any epistemic merit in having the opinion that reason is more reasonable than having no reason at all, if others don't mind.

Being a Christian is not about doing what God tells you, it is about God transforming your very nature so that you 'will' to do good. Therefore, we judge what is right or wrong by our own reason, but the very ability to judge in this manner stems itself from faith in God. And I am not stating this as fact any more than you did for your views in your own argument, how else are we to present our opinions? The transformation of a person's nature which I speak of is a very real process, which may be rationally observed taking place within people. And while you in turn may argue that these people are misguided or perhaps even deranged in their beliefs, you would have no more tangible evidence for doing so than there is for their own belief in God (and if so many people are deranged as they would need to be according to that argument, then humanity hardly seems to be a species which can trust to its own reason!). Also, I am not keen myself to get bogged down in semantics, so I have no problem with the last half of the paragraph.

In order to hold a theory of what defines morality, you must first make a judgment on what you consider to be moral. To me, it is painfully obvious what is immoral and what is not immoral. Eating cheetos that you bought and paid for is not immoral. Stabbing an innocent woman in the face is immoral. We all know this, except the completely unreasonable people. Now, what is the inherent difference between the two actions?

One causes harm, the other does not (this is moral by either of our definitions). But where does this 'morality' you speak of fit into your own darwinian view of the world? Within such a framework, it is only natural that a social species such as us humans and our biological ancestors would have altruistic elements present within our genes. Surely we would evolve to have them? Because I do not imagine that it would be so efficient for a lone male predator to have such a biological feauture, indeed for many such creatures it is clearly lacking. 'Morals' evolved with the creature that holds them, and they are no less necessary for one of its individuals own survival than for that of its counterparts. Where then did this universal moral truth, which you are "99.99% sure exists", arise from? How can it be universal if, in your denial of the supernatural, it does not exist beyond the individual level?

I do not contend that if altruistic measures count as morality, then humanity is capable of it. I just question if they are quite as selfless as you think, and if they can be truly said to be 'moral' in the sense the word has always meant, in that is a purely virtuous, universal, unchangeable truth. When discussing this earlier, you said you did not care what the cause was so long as the effect was good. Then fine, live like that. Humanity may do OK on those lines. But things will never be perfect. Although if I recall you said you were happy with that also. In which case I wonder why you think my own belief that morality can create a perfect society is so evil or pointless, since it offers a better promise than your own worldview. And if you now wish to attack my own wordview in that it is not founded on proof, then remember that we are currently discussing the philosophical validity of our beliefs; and if you did not wish to do so, then you should not have taken the discussion in this direction in the first place! Although I grant this path was inevitable since I argued faith can be no more damaging than the belief itself. So, whether or not you believe the belief system to be correct or real, I am trying to prove that it cannot be damaging, which was the original point of the debate.

One causes no suffering to anyone, anywhere, and feeds a hungry person, and also contributes to the economy. In moderation, this is not a problem. The other ends the life of an innocent person in a violent, senseless, painful, and traumatic way. It causes suffering and destruction for no reason at all. This is why I argue against those who argue that reason is not reasonable. Having no reason is the worst kind of being unreasonable, by definitions that cannot be challenged rationally.

So, we see the inherent definition of something immoral could be: Causes suffering and destruction without just cause. We can define just cause, and that is itself an argument which is actually more open to interpretation and debate, and it is a debate for the centuries, not an afternoon.

I agree with your definition of morality if it is limited to the observation of actions. The problem is, our actions are rooted in our natures, and while you may try to control immorality through laws, societal pressure, or indoctrination, it will always be treating the symtoms and not the disease.

And I have never argued that reasoning is unreasonable. Unlike PVC, I am a positive theologian. There is reason behind my decision to have faith. I know God is out there, and so it is reasonable to have faith [don't dissect this sentence, await the explanation]. Since my faith is reasonable (at least according to my own reasoning capabilities), you may instead question my reasoning behind that faith. In which case, I would tell you that total assurance of God's existence can only come from being 'born again', and it is such a revelation that transcends human reason or understanding, that it would be entirely unreasonable to dismiss this event. I have no proof for this that may be exchanged to another person, since the process originates from God Himself (and if I could then He would quickly lose his soveriegnty in man's salvation). But then I'm not here to prove my faith to you, I'm here to discuss whether or not it's dangerous. Reason is hardly reasonable if it cannot acknowledge its own limitations, and refuses us to allow faith to bridge the gaps where our understanding of greater truths is insufficient.

Stealing causes no destruction, other than it destroys the hard work of someone else to produce or obtain something legally and morally. But it does cause suffering to that victim. Hence, it should be considered immoral to do so. Are there exceptions? Perhaps, but they have to be very extenuating circumstances where there is serious moral basis for doing so, and there aren't many of those.

This is a very tough issue for atheist and theist alike. I'm inclined to agree with you. Sometimes, it may be just to do something apparently immoral in order to prevent a greater immoral event from occuring.

Nothing is so black and white and simple as saying something is immoral. The WHY is what I am concerned with. The faithful do not seem to be concerned with the WHY other than going so far as to say "God said so" or "it's in the Bible" which has no objective merit, because those aren't logical reasons to believe something is immoral. A more objective standard is called for, and that is why the government of my country, the United States of America, rejected the Bible as our Constitution and drafted laws which were created by religious and non-religious scholars, thinkers, philosophers, politicians, lawyers, judges, and farmers and poor people alike. We decided there was more merit in having a "larger view of the Force", so to speak.

Many of the greatest thinkers and founders of the United States, which was at least once in history a bastion of freedom, generosity, and moral leadership, in spite of its flaws, were not religious. They formed a moral philosophy based on reasoning and self-evident truths.

The nod to the Creator indicates we accept and welcome Godly folk, but it also says in our laws that belief in God is not necessary to be a viable upstanding member of society, and many of our laws do not come from God or the Bible, but from their own self-evident merit. Objective merit. Things which all of us sane, rational people, believe to be objectively true. There will always be those who disagree, but the vast majority of people believe that it should be illegal to murder someone; that does not have to come from the Bible to be true. That was a law or code before Christianity or Judaism came about several thousand years ago. When people murdered, even Godless societies condemned that person as a wanted criminal, and usually put them to death for their crime.

You could argue the "Creator" comment does more than give the nod to "Godly folk", although I'm not going to do that. Although it might be worth mentioning that John Locke, who so heavily influenced the Constitution, did not imagine atheists or perhaps even Catholics (he was a Puritan) as being compatible citizens in the commonwealth he envisaged.

In any case, I agree the US Constitution is a very great constitution for any nation, especially given the socioeconomic conditions of the place when it was drawn. Although I cannot understand this distinction you make between objective/subjective truths. What makes these values you believe in "self-evident truths"? Where's the physical proof, other than that most sane people believe in them (hardly a sufficient argument in itself)? They seem to me to have no more proof behind them than the values central to Christianity. And you say Christians simply follow their values because God said so; but then, what is God? A Christian will believe God to be far more than a personal being; they will view Him as being the total, pure nature of good itself. In this sense, the 'God' that Christians envisage is no different from the 'self-evident truths' that you hold to, it is the force of morality itself. Neither Christian values nor your 'self-evident truths' have any physical proof to back them, and so I'm curious as to why you so readily accept one and dismiss the other. Therefore, according to my Christian values, your own 'self-evident truths' system may be insufficient to be said to be moral. Similarly, by placing total faith in Christianity, you argue that I am bereft of all reason, and since you claim morals are discovered by reason, I am no more moral by your belief system than you are by mine. Since neither of us have proof, who's right (and remember, the openess to being wrong isn't directly relevant here)?

We've advanced far since then, but no religion can claim to have the monopoly on morality, and morality DOES exist independent of faith. If you want to call faith in reason a form of faith, you may do so, but reason allows for contradiction and growth, and faith holds fast to belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is brittle and inflexible, and "true" faith does not waver ever, not for science, not for reason, not for logic, not for the demands of societal pressure. Even the Chruches of Christianity have changed and evolved over the years to meet the demands of reformers within their own group (thank logic), so it is not a completely faith-based thing either.

Of course morality is a reasonable thing, seperate from faith. The problem is that given our natural condition, us humans can only achieve morality through faith (and I'm not just stating this out of the blue as a fact, we discussed it earlier). Also, faith in something exists so long as that thing exists. Faith is open to change, so long as the thing in which people place their faith is also changing. And if they fail to change with that thing in which they place their faith, then they must simply have been misguided in the first place; and so it is fair to say that misplaced faith is a potentially dangerous thing, although I cannot think of anyone who would deny this. However, what if faith is not always misguided? If you are open to the fact that it is not, then you must accept that faith is not always a negative thing. Faith placed in a good cause (which is in reality truthful) will bring about positive effects. Of course, we could go around in circles debating whether or not that cause is actually real. But remember, you made a very blanket, absolute statement for the start of this debate - that faith itself is inherently bad. If you accept that certain causes do not allow for true faith in them to cause bad effects, then until you show every faith-based belief system in the world to be wrong, you will never prove your point that faith is always bad.

Christian churches have of course changed in their doctrines over the years, but their fundamental belief in Jesus' sacrifice remains true. Since that is the only part of Christianity which demands absolute faith, then so long as they maintain that point they will have held their faith.

When faith is contaminated by reason, it is no longer purely faith, but now it is opinion influenced by evidence, and so it is therefore no longer truly faith, but opinion coupled with what I would consider... stubbornness, to be frank. I looked for a less harsh word, but it's the only appropriate one.

Faith does not bend to reason. When it does, it is simply opinion, and a stubborn opinion at that. Those with stubbornly held opinions held back progress and science throughout the millennia, and when they finally caught up with science and reason and modern society, they took credit for morality and progress and condemned those who thought freely as heretics; never learning from their mistakes.

Just because faith does not allow for reason once it comes into being, does not mean that it cannot be founded upon reasonable conclusions. And in the situations where it is reasonable to draw such conclusions, then it must be entirely unreasonable not to, and so reason is only sufficient so long as people's minds are capable of understanding greater truths (even your 'self-evident truths'). And yes, stubbornly held opinions are a diffferent matter from faith completely. To an extent your comments on organised religion and its stubborn proponents are true, although it is very much a matter of your own opinion (on which you do not elaborate), when you say religion purely took the credit for reason-based morality. I've argued consistently that there is much more to it than that.

To this day, they continue to oppose rational reforms like allowing gay people the right to adopt. If they can have children, then they must be fit parents. As such, they must be allowed to adpot; there is no rational basis for denying this. There are those (Such as Bobby Jindal) who have a 100% stance on being anti-abortion, even in the cases of rape or incest or death of the mother. Those are legitimate stances to hold, but they are also based on the idea that we as a society should intervene between a doctor and a young woman and force her to have a child which could kill her, or force her to have a child from a rapist, or force her to have her own father's child against her will.

I can think of plenty of rational reasons for not allowing gay adoption. Similarly for abortion (how about its murder for a start?). I just chipped in my 2 cents since you stated your own opinions in rather factual terms without explaining them (well not sufficiently anyway, you left me to make assumptions). Although really the issues you are raising are seperate points to debate in their own right.

That intervention goes against the conservative viewpoint that there should be more freedom and less government; a direct contradiction of their own values. They pick and choose which values to have, depending on the circumstances. As such, they have no faith-based morality, only stubborn opinions which do not change in the face of reason or evidence or objective merit. I oppose such pseudo-faith.

Hmm I didn't realise all Christians were 'conservative' (indeed, especially given the denominations of the US Christians I presume you are referring to, they were once upon a time anything but 'conservative'). Couldn't agree more on your point about 'pseudo-faith' though, it tends not to be a very productive thing.

Real faith would follow the Bible 100% in all cases, and there would be no intercourse before marriage, no lusting, no stealing whatsoever, no sins of any kind. Man is not capable of doing so, and even if they did, they would still be no better than the rest of us. They have to contribute something to society, not just sit in a room by themselves making sure not to commit a sin or God would punish them. Just being "good" isn't enough, to me. Do something with your mind and body, or stop consuming the resources of this planet, I say.

Again, couldn't agree more. Sounds to me like this part of your argument stems from disillusionment with part-time Christians (usually they have a Sunday shift). But really such arguments cannot be levelled against the faith itself, since the criticisms which you make are dependent upon the level to which the Christian faith is implemented in people's lives. How much "intercourse before marriage, lusting, stealing, sins of any kind" would you have seen in, say, 17th Century Britain? And I also agree that sitting in a room consuming resources is no good, since sloth is a sin in itself (Protestant work ethic and all that). The priesthood of all believers is an all encompassing doctrine, in which all the elect actively work their faith into their roles in society, creating an active Christian community. I don't like this half-hearted stuff we see nowadays either, what would the Puritan colonists think?

Not everyone can be perfect, and as such, you have to forgive others. In doing so, you've got to make a value judgment which behaviors can be forgiven. As such, you need a rational philosophy for deciding which behaviors to make illegal. As such, you can have religious belief, but you must have rational laws that apply to the real world based on reasoning, and a morality that is based on reason, and not faith in God. If this is possible, and it is, then morality does not flow from faith itself, but from reason, as I said.

I agree with the first bit, in that laws based on consent are necessarily for the effective functioning of any society. But I must disagree with the next bit, in that the laws of consent do not equate to morality. Morality is not about mutual preservation within society, it is about serving those 'self-evident truths' you speak of, the moral code that exists beyond the individual level. And I have not argued that morality is not reasonable, simply that given our natural sinful condition, humanity can only disover it through faith, something we discussed earlier.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

03-31-2009, 08:04

Gaius:

It is ATPG who asked who I can have faith and dissagree with the Bible, my responss being that Biblical infallability is not a componet on my faith. As I understand it, he contends that Christian faith can be ranked based on how much doctrine you adhere to, which I dissagree with. So essentially I agree with you, different Christians have different beliefs, but this does not reflect the strength of their faith.

For example, someone might have an unshakable faith in a Just God, and nothing more. This is an absolute faith which requires no other doctrine, it is a complete statement. The fact that it is a very sparse one is irrelevant. Conversely, you might have someone who holds ALL the tenets of the Catholic Church but doubts ALL as well. His faith is less, even though he holds more beliefs.

As far as this relates to Christianity, it is for God to decide who is Christe Fidelis, not human beings.

Thanks I understand your point about varying strengths of faith not being dependent on adherence to doctrine. I also acknowledge that God must judge who is right, and who has tried to be right etc... In actual fact in heated discussions I try and make a habit of clarifying things when it appears to me that people aren't understanding each other (plus I was a little confused).

In another thread, perhaps. Further discussions with me, PVC, should be done there or in private, if you please.

:bow:

Were this discussion to come about, I would like to be informed/involved somehow even if it were only in 'private'. :bow:.

ATPG,
Being a Christian is not about doing what God tells you, it is about God transforming your very nature so that you 'will' to do good. Therefore, we judge what is right or wrong by our own reason, but the very ability to judge in this manner stems itself from faith in God. And I am not stating this as fact any more than you did for your views in your own argument, how else are we to present our opinions? The transformation of a person's nature which I speak of is a very real process, which may be rationally observed taking place within people. And while you in turn may argue that these people are misguided or perhaps even deranged in their beliefs, you would have no more tangible evidence for doing so than there is for their own belief in God (and if so many people are deranged as they would need to be according to that argument, then humanity hardly seems to be a species which can trust to its own reason!). Also, I am not keen myself to get bogged down in semantics, so I have no problem with the last half of the paragraph.

So non-believers, in your view, have a different nature to Christians who have been transformed by God. Your point seems to be, and I am echoing what you have said earlier, that non-Christians cannot 'will' to do good, as we do not have an adequate platform of knowledge from which to judge right and wrong. I will admit that some people are changed by their perceived religious experiances, and that in many cases this is a positive change.

So you admit then that non-believers can act in good and moral ways, but conversely claim that due to a lack of understanding they cannot be acting in a moral way because they do not have an adequate understanding of good and evil. I'm finally seeing your point, even if I disagree fundamentally with it.

You could argue the "Creator" comment does more than give the nod to "Godly folk", although I'm not going to do that. Although it might be worth mentioning that John Locke, who so heavily influenced the Constitution, did not imagine atheists or perhaps even Catholics (he was a Puritan) as being compatible citizens in the commonwealth he envisaged.

In any case, I agree the US Constitution is a very great constitution for any nation, especially given the socioeconomic conditions of the place when it was drawn. Although I cannot understand this distinction you make between objective/subjective truths. What makes these values you believe in "self-evident truths"? Where's the physical proof, other than that most sane people believe in them (hardly a sufficient argument in itself)? They seem to me to have no more proof behind them than the values central to Christianity. And you say Christians simply follow their values because God said so; but then, what is God? A Christian will believe God to be far more than a personal being; they will view Him as being the total, pure nature of good itself. In this sense, the 'God' that Christians envisage is no different from the 'self-evident truths' that you hold to, it is the force of morality itself. Neither Christian values nor your 'self-evident truths' have any physical proof to back them, and so I'm curious as to why you so readily accept one and dismiss the other. Therefore, according to my Christian values, your own 'self-evident truths' system may be insufficient to be said to be moral. Similarly, by placing total faith in Christianity, you argue that I am bereft of all reason, and since you claim morals are discovered by reason, I am no more moral by your belief system than you are by mine. Since neither of us have proof, who's right (and remember, the openess to being wrong isn't directly relevant here)?

My argument to this, although I can't speak for ATPG would be that there are no 'self evident truths'. There are social values, and personal moral values, but they are no more than values. They have probably been held as wrong before, and probably will be again somewhere in the distant future. In this case then the idea of God as pure goodness is an opinion, or a value of Christianity, and as unprovable as correctness of any other value system. I don't want to dabble heavily in doctrine or history, but I will say that over time the Judeo-Christian God has shifted through literature from a vengeful God to a benevolent one over time, reflecting the changing values of His followers.

Thats all for now as I don't want to add too much to a very interesting discussion.

Vuk

03-31-2009, 21:12

ooooo boy and I tempted to stick my nose into this discussion. :P Tell you what ATPG, I am gonna have a lot more time this summer, and if you are still up for a debate on this topic, I am fairly sure I could give you a much more substantial argument than what you are getting here. Seriously, if you are up for round two some time after May, give me a PM. I am soooo tempted to respond to some of the things you said. :P

Rhyfelwyr

03-31-2009, 22:22

Mooks

03-31-2009, 23:55

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it curiosly funny on how we are debating on a method of thinking which is the opposite of debating?

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 00:04

Is it just me, or does anyone else find it curiosly funny on how we are debating on a method of thinking which is the opposite of debating?

That is the whole point of discussion here... :bow: when you put your trust in faith without reason or evidence, debate becomes impossible, because there is nothing to debate.

That is why I can debate ad infinitum, and the longer I do so, the more holes in the theory of faith will be exposed, and the more those faithful must argue on the home territory of logic and reason. When they do so, they will always lose their points, because there is no way to win them using logic and reason; if the philosophy is based on faith, not reason, then it has no reasonable foundation upon which to form a cogent argument.

Religion, again, is not under attack. What I believe about God and the afterlife is my opinion. What separates that from Faith is that those who are faithful live their lives and alter their lives based upon belief in something without any evidence, rather than sticking to the facts. Sometimes a leap of faith is called for, but we are rational beings who live in a rational society of laws and reason, and as such, our primary decision making process should be reasoned examination of the evidence, not leaping to conclusions, in my opinion. There is room for religion and faith, but it must bow to the rational, or it becomes dangerous. That is why irrational faithful sounds very frightening. You are dealing with someone who rejects reason and believes wholeheartedly in something without cause, and acts as if they know for a fact that which is unknown.

Sometimes people have to make a judgment call in this world without knowing all the facts. But if they look at all the evidence, and accept all possibilities, that is a better method than random guessing, by test. Test it out and see.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2009, 02:59

There's also no way to win against faith, either.

Are you trying to debate the nature of faith, or against faith?

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 07:32

There's also no way to win against faith, either.

Are you trying to debate the nature of faith, or against faith?

"Winning" in this context involves several things for me.

1. Pointing out that faith, unbalanced by reason, and especially DOUBT, can be dangerous.

2. Pointing out the difference between faith and religion; religion is theory of the supernatural, whereas faith is belief without doubt, or in spite of doubt. One isn't necessarily dangerous, the other is.

3. Pointing out that faith cannot be used as a foundation for rational argument, because it's inherently self-contradictory. FAITH implies the irrational, which is belief that you KNOW when you cannot know. That's different from HOPE, which is belief that it is possible, but you accept it may not be true. DOUBT allows both belief, leaps of faith, and hope... but not blindness.

4. If I can convince any of the faithful; they don't need to give up on their religion. In my opinion, all they really should do (if my opinion matters) is they should not take the stance that they KNOW God's mind, or KNOW what will happen when we die, because that is 100% false. Even if you were correct, you still don't KNOW for a fact until you're dead. If you allow for the possibility of being wrong, that is both reasonable and rational, and is the foundation of wisdom. If you remove that possibility, I believe that you are being... (forgive me... I don't intend this as it sounds...) a little bit foolish.

No man is infallible. To believe that you KNOW something for certain, when there can be no certainty, is a little (or a lot) foolish, in my opinion. However, I assume the counter will be "If you don't place your faith in Jesus you'll burn in hell, so who is the real fool?" and as such, I would respond; If I follow a rational interpretation of the selfless and generous and moral message of Jesus, without being a bigot or a hypocrite, or a person of prejudice and condemnation, then I am placing my "faith" in the correct way, as best I can. And as I never said there cannot be a God, or a Jesus, and I never said that I know that the Biblical story is false, then this mighty Creator will simply have to accept that I have doubts, and even one of Jesus' disciples had doubts, but jesus never said he couldn't get into heaven. And like I said, if heaven doesn't want me in there because I couldn't accept on blind faith that I had to be Christian to get in, it is a place of prejudice and intolerance, not compassion and mercy, and as such, I don't wish to be a part of it.

And I know I will not burn in hell, because a kind and loving God and hell is a contradiction. There are some truths which are self-evident, and we can believe in those to a very, very great extent. You can call THAT my faith. To be more precise; it is HOPE.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 07:52

Rhyfelwyr:

1. I have issues with your religion, but that is beside the point. That is a separate discussion, but since you brought up the tenets of your faith into the argument, I had to reply to them. Much of what you argued was not about faith, but direct quotes from your religion, and stating them as fact. There was little I could do to avoid criticizing your arguments, because they were made as statements of fact, not opinion, and they were simply your sharing of your faith to a large extent, not arguing the merits of faith itself.

2. What you believe is your religion, and your religion is your own business, as it is my business alone what mine is. However, my point was that believing in a religion and stating it as a fact are two different things. You have consistently argued that Christian belief is the sole foundation of morality. I think you would find that view wildly unpopular even amongst Christians, and 100% unpopular amongst non-Christians, and I can basically prove that you're wrong: Christian belief does not make one moral, and being a non-Christian does NOT make one IMMORAL. You have failed to prove otherwise.

3. There is no basis for the belief that you KNOW something that you cannot know. Even science allows for the possibility, however unlikely, that EVERYTHING we think we know is wrong. The statement "I do not know" is the beginning of true wisdom. Those who think they know, know less and less each day. They knew the world was created in 6 days just a few short millennia ago. They knew that dinosaurs lived alongside mankind. They knew that the origin of species was in a certain order which was later "proven" by evidence to be false. They knew the sun went around the Earth. They knew that human beings had nothing in common with animals. They knew that sneezing caused your soul to leave your body. They knew that people could become bewitched and needed to be burnt at the stake or otherwise murdered. They knew that by sacrificing a young virgin, there would be a greater harvest. They knew that the stars predicted your entire life. They knew that God had commanded them to take control of the lands in North America, because it was theirs by divine right. They knew that the Earth was flat, and they knew that everything was made of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, not atoms, and they also knew anyone who disagreed was a heretic, a blasphemer, and a pagan sinner who needed to be converted away from their ignorance. Some people knew that certain races were superior to others. Some people knew that men were superior to women. Some people knew that their emperor was a god, and that all others on this earth would either serve him or die. Some people knew that their religion was correct, and wiped out other religions.

Imagine what we will know tomorrow. Knowledge without reasoning and evidence is not knowledge, but opinion, and it is often very, very wrong, and very very dangerous.

Faith that one's opinion is greater than all evidence to the contrary is dangerous. Doubt is the only cure for unrelenting faith. Hope can still exist with doubt, but with faith, there are many instances where hope itself is extinguished. For example, the faithful (some of them) believe the Earth is doomed to die a horrible, horrible death due to this supposed battle of Armageddon. They have extinguished all hope that there is any other path for humanity, and actually look forward to this final Holocaust where most of humanity will die violently, and think it is a good thing.

Faith is the murderer of Hope. Only Doubt can give us Hope.

Vuk

04-01-2009, 09:28

3. There is no basis for the belief that you KNOW something that you cannot know. Even science allows for the possibility, however unlikely, that EVERYTHING we think we know is wrong. The statement "I do not know" is the beginning of true wisdom. Those who think they know, know less and less each day. They knew the world was created in 6 days just a few short millennia ago. They knew that dinosaurs lived alongside mankind. They knew that the origin of species was in a certain order which was later "proven" by evidence to be false. They knew the sun went around the Earth. They knew that human beings had nothing in common with animals. They knew that sneezing caused your soul to leave your body. They knew that people could become bewitched and needed to be burnt at the stake or otherwise murdered. They knew that by sacrificing a young virgin, there would be a greater harvest. They knew that the stars predicted your entire life. They knew that God had commanded them to take control of the lands in North America, because it was theirs by divine right. They knew that the Earth was flat, and they knew that everything was made of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, not atoms, and they also knew anyone who disagreed was a heretic, a blasphemer, and a pagan sinner who needed to be converted away from their ignorance. Some people knew that certain races were superior to others. Some people knew that men were superior to women. Some people knew that their emperor was a god, and that all others on this earth would either serve him or die. Some people knew that their religion was correct, and wiped out other religions.

Imagine what we will know tomorrow. Knowledge without reasoning and evidence is not knowledge, but opinion, and it is often very, very wrong, and very very dangerous.

Faith that one's opinion is greater than all evidence to the contrary is dangerous. Doubt is the only cure for unrelenting faith. Hope can still exist with doubt, but with faith, there are many instances where hope itself is extinguished. For example, the faithful (some of them) believe the Earth is doomed to die a horrible, horrible death due to this supposed battle of Armageddon. They have extinguished all hope that there is any other path for humanity, and actually look forward to this final Holocaust where most of humanity will die violently, and think it is a good thing.

Faith is the murderer of Hope. Only Doubt can give us Hope.
I will forgo addressing some historical inaccuracies in your post and cut right down to your argument. What you are saying is that 'knowing' something means nothing because you could be very wrong, so you need reasoning and evidence. The problem is though that all these people had reasoning and evidence. The evidence just did not prove what they wanted because their reasoning is wrong. You will probably argue with me, but you can say the same thing about such things as the climate change crisis and evolution. I personally think that they are bosh, the arguments behind them unconvincing, and I do not think that the evidence supports is. My point is that what you are saying basically is what I believe is right because I have evidence and reason and what you are saying is wrong because you do not. Thing is that you both have evidence and reasoning, but believe in different things. Christianity cannot be proven, but there IS evidence for it (whether you think that it is truely evidence for a creator or not, there are many who do, much as evolutionists think there is evidence for evolution) and there IS a lot of reasoning behind the belief. Evolution is faith based as well (so in that way no different than Christianity), because all we can do with both is look at the evidence we have and try to figure out what happened. For something to be scientifically proven, it needs to be observed and repeated. Obviously the creation of the universe cannot be scientifically observed and repeated like that. Both sides think that the archialogical and historical evidence supports them, but to believe one way or another, both need faith.

And as to your argument about faith being a murderer of hope, I find it highly illogical. First of all, because EVERYONE has faith. When you see things on the news and when your professors tell you about conditions on stars, you have not seen them yourself, and you NEED faith to believe them. Faith is part of our everyday life and does not have to be religious. Also, you say that some people have faith that only bad is to come, while ignoring all the people who have faith that everything is gonna get better.
Faith is better than just hope, because I can hope for golden nugget the size of Miami to suddenly spawn in my backyard, but even though I would like it and hope for it, I know it will not happen, so hope will not make me feel any better. I think the hope you are talking about hopeful faith. A belief that stuff can and will get better. Sure, that is hope, but it is also faith.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 09:34

You will probably argue with me, but you can say the same thing about such things as the climate change crisis and evolution. I personally think that they are bosh, the arguments behind them unconvincing, and I do not think that the evidence supports is.

Most scientists would disagree with you, and they are more familiar with the subject matter. I could no more tell a nuclear physicist how to do his job than a casual observer can make a more qualified assessment of evolution or climate change.

You seem to equate faith (believing something with no evidence) with belief in evidence. That makes no sense. They are inherently different, otherwise Scientology would be taught alongside Science in our public schools.

There are several other points I didn't think you argued very well, but it does not matter; I can never convince you, because you equate faith with science, and they are opposing concepts.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

04-01-2009, 09:55

I think confusion may be arising over what I try to differentiate between as Faith (religious faith in this context) and faith in evidence. I'm not sure though... Had something to say but I've been summoned elsewhere, may post it tomorrow.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 10:12

Vuk

04-01-2009, 10:14

Most scientists would disagree with you, and they are more familiar with the subject matter. I could no more tell a nuclear physicist how to do his job than a casual observer can make a more qualified assessment of evolution or climate change.

You seem to equate faith (believing something with no evidence) with belief in evidence. That makes no sense. They are inherently different, otherwise Scientology would be taught alongside Science in our public schools.

There are several other points I didn't think you argued very well, but it does not matter; I can never convince you, because you equate faith with science, and they are opposing concepts.

Not at all. Scientists hold beliefs just like everyone else, and have been wrong on many things. You are also ignoring the fact that many scientists (and prominent ones) who have studied climate change and evolution have come to the conclusion that it is bull. What you did right there is what you get mad at christians for doing. You accepted the popular opinion of scientists unconditionally because you had faith that they knew what they are doing. You did not do the research and observing yourself, you simply trust that because they say they did and they say that their research supports their hypothesis they must be correct. You have what you consider a strong reason to take what they say on faith, much like Christians feel they have a strong reason to accept things God says on faith.

Again though, you are wrong. My entire post was to point out that Faith is NOT blind. (at least not always) There IS evidence to support what God has had recorded in the Bible, and there is good reasoning to it. Otherwise, no one would have faith in anything that God said. If someone tells me that the buggieman is gonna come down to earth in a year and bring destruction to all who do not clip their toenails daily, I am not gonna have faith in anything he said, because I have seen no evidence to support it and there can be no reasoning for it.
Likewise with evolution, the best scientists can do (and prominent evolutionists have admitted this, it is not a secret, or an inherently bad thing) is look at the evidence, and hypothesise. They cannot prove evolution, and they need faith to believe in it. Likewise there are many scientist who look at the same evidence and say that they think it is support for the earth being created by a divine being. One accepts the existance of a divine being, and one denies it, but both rely on faith. There is no way to prove that a divine being does not exist, so you need just as much faith to believe that there is no God as you do to believe that there is a God.

Vuk

04-01-2009, 10:22

To be very, very, very clear:

In the context of this discussion:

Faith: Belief that you KNOW something that you cannot know.
Science: Belief that evidence and logic and reason, testing, repeated results, and predicted outcomes are better than wild guesses
Hope: Belief in something in spite of doubt, but never believing that you cannot be wrong.
Doubt: Healthy skepticism

lol, by your own definition you must take evolution on faith. You cannot KNOW evolution happened (according to the scientific theory) unless you observed it, and repeated it, therefore you MUST take it on faith.
I would disagree highly with you definition of science. It is more a definition of common sense than the very specific definition of science. As it is the nature of science, I believe that it is critical that the formal definition is used.
I would also disagree with your definition of faith, not that there is anything specifically wrong with it, but that it is worded in a someone inprecise manner that makes it somewhat ambiguous.
I think that a better definition of Faith would be:
Belief in something that cannot be tested or scientifically proven.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 10:22

Not at all. Scientists hold beliefs just like everyone else, and have been wrong on many things.

As have religious people. The difference: Scientists admit they could be wrong.

You are also ignoring the fact that many scientists (and prominent ones) who have studied climate change and evolution have come to the conclusion that it is bull.

Many, many more scientists, specifically ones who study climate, disagree. They have the expertise.

And global temperatures are rising, the ONLY controversy is over why, Vuk.

What you did right there is what you get mad at christians for doing. You accepted the popular opinion of scientists unconditionally because you had faith that they knew what they are doing.

WRONG. I am not an expert, and unless you hold a degree and have experience in these matters, you aren't either. I said that you're not in a position to argue with the scientists in question because you don't know what you're talking about.

You did not do the research and observing yourself,

Faith requires none, so why hold me to a greater standard than you hold yourself?

you simply trust that because they say they did and they say that their research supports their hypothesis they must be correct.

No. What they do is better than a random guess. I never said they couldn't be wrong.

But YOU have said it must be bull, when you cannot state why. You claim to know things that you don't know.

That is the big mistake you keep making.

You have what you consider a strong reason to take what they say on faith, much like Christians feel they have a strong reason to accept things God says on faith.

There is a difference between science and religion. If you don't understand why, then we cannot debate.

Again though, you are wrong.

I could simply reply "YOU'RE wrong" but I won't. The point is that you state plainly that I am wrong, not that it is your opinion that I am wrong.

You claim to KNOW when you DO NOT KNOW. That is the flaw. That is the flaw. That is the flaw.

Repeat, repeat, repeat.

You DO NOT KNOW.

My entire post was to point out that Faith is NOT blind.

It is by definition blind to evidence to the contrary. And it has blinded you to the very idea that what you think is fact is your opinion.

I'll spare you further dissection. You're on very, very bad ground here.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 10:27

lol, by your own definition you must take evolution on faith. You cannot KNOW evolution happened (according to the scientific theory) unless you observed it, and repeated it, therefore you MUST take it on faith.

In my opinion, you do not understand what you're talking about. We observe micro-evolution all the time. We breed new species all the time. We create new species. We have altered the evolutionary path of the dog, and of domesticated animals and plants. We can do this ourselves, and it has been observed in nature. New species have formed in our lifetimes.

You are not qualified to continue this debate, because you haven't demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter. If you disagree, I will hear your rebuttal.

I would disagree highly with you definition of science. It is more a definition of common sense than the very specific definition of science. As it is the nature of science, I believe that it is critical that the formal definition is used.

Whichever.

I would also disagree with your definition of faith, not that there is anything specifically wrong with it, but that it is worded in a someone inprecise manner that makes it somewhat ambiguous.

In the context of this discussion, that is the definition I am using.

I think that a better definition of Faith would be:
Belief in something that cannot be tested or scientifically proven.

Belief that you KNOW for a FACT something that cannot be tested or scientifically proven.

Vuk, you aren't making a good argument, in my opinion.

Vuk

04-01-2009, 10:48

As have religious people. The difference: Scientists admit they could be wrong.

On the contrary, I am a Christian and I know that I could be wrong, but I do not think that I am because I believe that scientific evidence and history supports my belief. At least I am humble enough to call it a belief, and not try to pass it off as scientific fact. (as many scientist do with things like evolutionary origins which CANNOT be scientifically proven)

Many, many more scientists, specifically ones who study climate, disagree. They have the expertise.

And global temperatures are rising, the ONLY controversy is over why, Vuk.

So what if more disagree? That does not believe that they are correct. Many times before the scientific community has held predominant opinions (which they heralded as fact) that have ended up being wrong. You are the one who is refusing to admit that you could be wrong and that those scientists could be wrong. I specifically said climate change crisis in my first post as well BTW, because I know very well that global tempatures are rising. I am talking about the belief that we are in a man-made crisis that is one day going to ruin the earth, etc.

WRONG. I am not an expert, and unless you hold a degree and have experience in these matters, you aren't either. I said that you're not in a position to argue with the scientists in question because you don't know what you're talking about.

You are right, I am not an expert, and neither are you, yet you look at the evidence that scientists have put forth and believe in one thing, and I look at it and believe another. It does not mean that I am wrong and that you are right, to assume so would be arrogant. As I have said, I am in agreement with quite a few scientists on my belief. Because your opinion is held by more people does not make it right.

Faith requires none, so why hold me to a greater standard than you hold yourself?

I am not holding you to a higher standard, simply pointing out that you rely on faith as well, something you have devoted a thread to proving is horrible.

No. What they do is better than a random guess. I never said they couldn't be wrong.

But YOU have said it must be bull, when you cannot state why. You claim to know things that you don't know.

That is the big mistake you keep making.

Wrong, I said I BELIEVE it is bull. (again, being willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong) I have a reason for my beliefs, but I am not stating them here, as this conversation is not about that, but about faith. My point here was to show your reliance on faith, not to prove my point about evolution of climate change. For all you know those scientists could be lying to you (I do not believe they are, I am simply using it as an example to show your reliance on faith), or they could be making a horrible mistake and overlooking something, but you accept what they say on faith without doing the observations and experiments yourself. That is not science on your part, that is having faith in scientists. (which is not a bad thing) Every person cannot scientifically test everything throughout ones life, we need to rely on faith for a lot more than you would think.

There is a difference between science and religion. If you don't understand why, then we cannot debate.

lol, and I never said there wasn't. My arguments have not been about religion (I am not trying to convert you to my weird mix of Jewish/Christian religion. :P), but about faith. My point is that science CANNOT disprove OR prove religion, and that it takes faith to both believe in it and believe that it does not exist. Scientists can see evidence as supportive for both, but science CANNOT prove one or the other. That is what you seem to be missing.

I could simply reply "YOU'RE wrong" but I won't. The point is that you state plainly that I am wrong, not that it is your opinion that I am wrong.

You claim to KNOW when you DO NOT KNOW. That is the flaw. That is the flaw. That is the flaw.

Repeat, repeat, repeat.

You DO NOT KNOW.

Thank you for informing me. I will convert imediately. :P My statement was about your interpretation of my previous post, not about your beliefs. I was not saying your beliefs were wrong, but that you had misunderstood me.

It is by definition blind to evidence to the contrary. And it has blinded you to the very idea that what you think is fact is your opinion.

Sorry, but you presume too much when you pretend to know my beliefs so thoughroughly. I do NOT think that what I believe is fact, I BELIEVE it is, but I know that I could be wrong.
And faith, as I have pointed out in my previous posts, is NOT blind to evidence. It cannot be proven by evidence, but it CAN be supported by evidence. I believe you are missing that point entirely.

I'll spare you further dissection. You're on very, very bad ground here.

Pray, enlighten me further.

Vuk

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 11:00

I do not think anything further is to be gained, Vuk.

You are using different definitions of words than I am, and we are not understanding one another.

I do NOT think that what I believe is fact, I BELIEVE it is, but I know that I could be wrong.

Think/believe? Same thing. If you know you could be wrong about your religion or your opinions, then you don't have faith, you have belief. AKA opinion.

Faith is a different animal, and that is where the disconnect between our arguments is. Faith and belief are two different things. One holds opinion as fact, the other holds opinion as opinion.

The language leaves too much room for ambiguity, and if this does not highlight the validity of my argument, then all we have is a nitpick over semantics, not a real argument anyway.

Vuk

04-01-2009, 11:02

In my opinion, you do not understand what you're talking about. We observe micro-evolution all the time. We breed new species all the time. We create new species. We have altered the evolutionary path of the dog, and of domesticated animals and plants. We can do this ourselves, and it has been observed in nature. New species have formed in our lifetimes.

On the contrary, you are not paying attention to what I am saying. I said ORIGINS of life and the universe in my very first post. You cannot prove the big bang because you did not see it and cannot repeat it. You cannot prove that people evolved from non-living matter, because you did not observe it and cannot repeat it. And you are also forgetting that what you have there is NOT proof, but evidence. Evidence that many scientists (and myself) think supports Christianity more than evolution. The fact that all these natural mutations are made with exsisting genes for instance I believe proves that the creator made living being so they could adapt to a changing world. When we mess around with genes in a lab, it proves the power of the human brain that God created IMO. The things we do are not in nature, they are our own creations. Again though, you are forgetting that my point was about faith, not evolution. Evolution was only a tool I was using in the discussion.

You are not qualified to continue this debate, because you haven't demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter. If you disagree, I will hear your rebuttal.

Sorry ATPG, I know this is your debate, but that comes across as arrogant to me. I think that you are wrong, and I think that you are not making a good case for yourself at all, but I would not say something like that too you. The point of a debate in the long run is to enhance the understanding of all those involved, not just the spectators.

Whichever.

In the context of this discussion, that is the definition I am using.

Belief that you KNOW for a FACT something that cannot be tested or scientifically proven.
But you cannot redefine things to your liking. :P By your definition then I am not a man of faith, nor do I believe 99% of the Christians alive would be. :P I do not think anyone will argue for faith by the definition you give it. Christian faith is NOT the faith of your definition though ATPG (at least not me and the Christians I know). The faith you are arguing I thought you said at the beginning was about Christian faith, which would contradict your new definition.
Vuk, you aren't making a good argument, in my opinion.
Of course, and I think the same about you, that is why we are having a debate. :clown:

Vuk

Vuk

04-01-2009, 11:09

I do not think anything further is to be gained, Vuk.

You are using different definitions of words than I am, and we are not understanding one another.

Think/believe? Same thing. If you know you could be wrong about your religion or your opinions, then you don't have faith, you have belief. AKA opinion.

Faith is a different animal, and that is where the disconnect between our arguments is. Faith and belief are two different things. One holds opinion as fact, the other holds opinion as opinion.

The language leaves too much room for ambiguity, and if this does not highlight the validity of my argument, then all we have is a nitpick over semantics, not a real argument anyway.

If I was not clear, let me explain it better. My argument is that faith IS based on evidence and reasoning. As long as that evidence and that reasoning holds up, I have ABSOLUTE faith in my religion, and know that it could not be wrong. BUT, if that evidence or reason ever fails, then the foundation for my faith is gone, and I will no longer believe in it. I know that I could be wrong, not because if that evidence and reasoning is right there could be any possibility of God being wrong or not existing, but because I know that there IS always a possibility that that evidence or reasoning I am using as a foundation for my faith could turn out to be wrong. I have a firm belief that it won't, but I do blind myself. I do consider myself a man of faith, and the faith that I have (even if you would argue it is not faith) is the faith of every Christian I know. I think you are making the mistake of forgetting the foundation that faith is based on.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 11:14

But you cannot redefine things to your liking. :P By your definition then I am not a man of faith, nor do I believe 99% of the Christians alive would be. :P I do not think anyone will argue for faith by the definition you give it. Christian faith is NOT the faith of your definition though ATPG (at least not me and the Christians I know). The faith you are arguing I thought you said at the beginning was about Christian faith, which would contradict your new definition.

I did not redefine anything, I clarified what I was talking about.

And Rhyfelwyr did INDEED argue for faith as I described it. Did you read his posts? He said that he knew that non-Christians would burn in hell, and that Christianity is the only source of morality, and he didn't state that as an opinion.

No, I am not talking about Christian faith, I'm talking about the CONCEPT of FAITH in general, not religious faith specifically, nor Christian religion either. I did state this many times in this thread. This is why I am dissatisfied with your argument, because you are overlooking the very essence of what I am saying.

I have clarified my position several times, but you still do not understand that it boils down to a very, very simple concept:

1. Some people believe their opinion is fact.
2. Others believe their opinion is opinion.
3. Those who take an extreme view of their religion, politics, or philosophy, believe their opinion is fact. That is what I call Faith.
4. Those who understand they could be wrong are rational people who use Reason.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 11:21

If I was not clear, let me explain it better. My argument is that faith IS based on evidence and reasoning. As long as that evidence and that reasoning holds up, I have ABSOLUTE faith in my religion, and know that it could not be wrong. BUT, if that evidence or reason ever fails, then the foundation for my faith is gone, and I will no longer believe in it. I know that I could be wrong, not because if that evidence and reasoning is right there could be any possibility of God being wrong or not existing, but because I know that there IS always a possibility that that evidence or reasoning I am using as a foundation for my faith could turn out to be wrong. I have a firm belief that it won't, but I do blind myself. I do consider myself a man of faith, and the faith that I have (even if you would argue it is not faith) is the faith of every Christian I know. I think you are making the mistake of forgetting the foundation that faith is based on.

I cannot debate you here, because your religion is not under scrutiny, and since you admit you could be wrong, you aren't practicing faith as I define it, but opinion. As such I have no quarrel with you.

The English language in lay terms is too imprecise to base our definitions off of. Faith in a common dictionary means many things; if we are to have a debate over it, we have to define terms. I have a quarrel with anyone who believes that their opinion is fact, and unquestionable, and leaves no room for doubt or admitting the possibility of being wrong.

Rhyfelwyr's examples of his faith demonstrate the kind of thinking I argue against, not yours. You admitted you could be wrong, that is all I ask.

Vuk

04-01-2009, 11:35

I did not redefine anything, I clarified what I was talking about.

And Rhyfelwyr did INDEED argue for faith as I described it. Did you read his posts? He said that he knew that non-Christians would burn in hell, and that Christianity is the only source of morality, and he didn't state that as an opinion.

He stated that because it is his belief, and you have stated things in this thread without qualifying that you may be wrong. Neither of you believe that you are wrong and you both believe strongly in what you are saying. That does not mean that either of you do not accept the possibility that you may be wrong. He has faith in what he says, and he believe that the foundation of his faith (which is part of the faith) is strong, as you believe yours is. That does not mean that if something were to happen to the principles or evidence that either of you base your beliefs on that you would not change, and that you are not aware of that now. I cannot speak for Rhyf, but I did not get the same impression as you did. Maybe he would be kind enough as to answer this himself.

No, I am not talking about Christian faith, I'm talking about the CONCEPT of FAITH in general, not religious faith specifically, nor Christian religion either. I did state this many times in this thread. This is why I am dissatisfied with your argument, because you are overlooking the very essence of what I am saying.

I have clarified my position several times, but you still do not understand that it boils down to a very, very simple concept:

1. Some people believe their opinion is fact.
To be honest with you ATPG, everyone in the world does to a great extent. We can have our minds changed, but we all believe that we are right. Most atheists believe that they are absolutely correct and could not be wrong. What makes a person blind or not is when they are shown that they are wrong, or at least no longer have a firm basis for their beliefs if they still have faith in them.
2. Others believe their opinion is opinion.
Most people consider some of their beliefs to be opinions, but I think that all people consider their core beliefs to be fact.
3. Those who take an extreme view of their religion, politics, or philosophy, believe their opinion is fact. That is what I call Faith.
That is your opinion. :clown: Do you think you could be wrong about that? :laugh4: Seriously though, what makes you say that because you have faith, your views must be extreme? What about faith constitutes religious, political, or philosophical extremeties? (usually that comes with a negative association BTW)
4. Those who understand they could be wrong are rational people who use Reason.
That is true, but again I challenge your idea that all people do not accept some of their own beliefs as facts. What democrat does NOT believe repulbilcans are wrong and vice versa? When you see an apple, do you think: Fact - that apple is red, or do you think: hmmm...that apple looks red to me, but I will acknowledge that I could be wrong about that. There are things that humans HAVE to accept as facts (whether they are right or not). As I said before though, what makes someone blind is when they are shown that what they thought is fact really isn't, and they still cling to their belief with no basis for it.
I personally like reming myself whenever possible that I could be wrong, and not to take things as concrete, but everyone when they see that something is concrete for sure is gonna think it is concrete (even if it turns out not to be). I think you are arguing against human nature, not faith. Faith has a base, and is not restricted to extremities. Everyone has faith, whether they classify it as faith or not. (here is where our definitions start to clash again)

Vuk

Vuk

04-01-2009, 11:45

I cannot debate you here, because your religion is not under scrutiny, and since you admit you could be wrong, you aren't practicing faith as I define it, but opinion. As such I have no quarrel with you.

The English language in lay terms is too imprecise to base our definitions off of. Faith in a common dictionary means many things; if we are to have a debate over it, we have to define terms. I have a quarrel with anyone who believes that their opinion is fact, and unquestionable, and leaves no room for doubt or admitting the possibility of being wrong.

Rhyfelwyr's examples of his faith demonstrate the kind of thinking I argue against, not yours. You admitted you could be wrong, that is all I ask.

But apply what I said about the basis of faith to Rhyf. If it was proven tomorrow that the Bible as we know it is just a corrupt translation of an original manuscript meant to control people through the church, do you think he would still hold the same beliefs? No, because the foundation of his belief would be gone. His beliefs are absolute and there is no question as to their validity because he believes that the evidence and reasoning behind them (while it cannot prove them) is enough to justify it. If that foundation was gone though, he would not believe it. He may not believe that the reasoning or evidence he bases his faith on will ever turn out to be faulty (you could not have a belief in anything if you thought so), but if it did, I think that he would accept that he was wrong, and his faith would not hold him against reason, because it was the reason the his faith was based on, and it is now gone. He may not qualify this everytime he states his beliefs, as human beings have a tendency to state their beliefs as facts, since they obviously think of them as such, but I think he realises this as much as you do about your own beliefs. In short, I honestly think that the discussion comes down to a misunderstanding.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 11:49

He stated that because it is his belief, and you have stated things in this thread without qualifying that you may be wrong. Neither of you believe that you are wrong and you both believe strongly in what you are saying. That does not mean that either of you do not accept the possibility that you may be wrong. He has faith in what he says, and he believe that the foundation of his faith (which is part of the faith) is strong, as you believe yours is. That does not mean that if something were to happen to the principles or evidence that either of you base your beliefs on that you would not change, and that you are not aware of that now. I cannot speak for Rhyf, but I did not get the same impression as you did. Maybe he would be kind enough as to answer this himself.

I have repeatedly stated that I could be wrong. Repeatedly. In almost every post here.

I believe strongly, but Rhyfelwyr states that he knows that morality flows from Christianity alone, and that non-Christians burn in hell.

He didn't qualify it with an opinion, he stated it as fact.

To be honest with you ATPG, everyone in the world does to a great extent. We can have our minds changed, but we all believe that we are right. Most atheists believe that they are absolutely correct and could not be wrong. What makes a person blind or not is when they are shown that they are wrong, or at least no longer have a firm basis for their beliefs if they still have faith in them.

Belief that you are right, and belief that you KNOW you are right, that is the difference.

You are intentionally avoiding this difference now? Please state you understand the difference.

Most people consider some of their beliefs to be opinions, but I think that all people consider their core beliefs to be fact.

Wrong. I do not believe that anything can be proven beyond all doubt, but things can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and there is a difference between the two, and there is a difference between proven beyond a reasonable doubt and plain opinion as well.

Please signify you see a difference between these three distinct concepts.

That is your opinion. Do you think you could be wrong about that? Seriously though, what makes you say that because you have faith, your views must be extreme? What about faith constitutes religious, political, or philosophical extremeties? (usually that comes with a negative association BTW)

That would lead to an entirely offtopic discussion.

That is true, but again I challenge your idea that all people do not accept some of their own beliefs as facts. What democrat does NOT believe repulbilcans are wrong and vice versa? When you see an apple, do you think: Fact - that apple is red, or do you think: hmmm...that apple looks red to me, but I will acknowledge that I could be wrong about that. There are things that humans HAVE to accept as facts (whether they are right or not). As I said before though, what makes someone blind is when they are shown that what they thought is fact really isn't, and they still cling to their belief with no basis for it.
I personally like reming myself whenever possible that I could be wrong, and not to take things as concrete, but everyone when they see that something is concrete for sure is gonna think it is concrete (even if it turns out not to be). I think you are arguing against human nature, not faith. Faith has a base, and is not restricted to extremities. Everyone has faith, whether they classify it as faith or not. (here is where our definitions start to clash again)

Vuk, I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're acknowledging what my argument is about, nor what the thread topic is about; the difference between faith and reason, as we've been defining it for this entire thread.

The difference between "knowing" something as "fact" when it is not proven beyond all doubt, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not attempted to be proven, not attempted to be challenged, not even once begun to be doubted at all...... and knowing something is your opinion.

There ARE those who say that their opinion must be fact and that all other opinions, indeed, all things considered "factual" by reasonable evidence and reasonable doubt, are all lies compared to their knowledge of God, which is inherently their own opinion alone, without a foundation.

Whether that holds true for you or not, is not the discussion. You have religious belief, but you don't believe in it so much that you say "I cannot be wrong", or worse "God said it"

Any human being who says "God said it" has got a lot of explaining to do.

Bottom line, Vuk; my quarrel is not with you, it is with those who believe their opinions are unquestionably the word of God almighty.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 11:51

But apply what I said about the basis of faith to Rhyf. If it was proven tomorrow that the Bible as we know it is just a corrupt translation of an original manuscript meant to control people through the church, do you think he would still hold the same beliefs? No, because the foundation of his belief would be gone. His beliefs are absolute and there is no question as to their validity because he believes that the evidence and reasoning behind them (while it cannot prove them) is enough to justify it. If that foundation was gone though, he would not believe it. He may not believe that the reasoning or evidence he bases his faith on will ever turn out to be faulty (you could not have a belief in anything if you thought so), but if it did, I think that he would accept that he was wrong, and his faith would not hold him against reason, because it was the reason the his faith was based on, and it is now gone. He may not qualify this everytime he states his beliefs, as human beings have a tendency to state their beliefs as facts, since they obviously think of them as such, but I think he realises this as much as you do about your own beliefs. In short, I honestly think that the discussion comes down to a misunderstanding.

I do not think so. He stated his opinion as fact quite clearly, from my perspective. He knows we are all burning in hell.

He can speak for himself, and has done so, and I don't believe it is the same as what you are saying.

My quarrel with Rhy is that he knows what God wants, he does not think he knows.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 11:59

ANNOUNCEMENT:

I would like to allow unspoilered comments from people now. It is a pain in the neck.

Request: You debate someone at length or make a huge post, put THAT in spoilers. If you want to make a quick comment or a simple (SIMPLE) rebuttal, you don't have to spoiler it.

I don't think Rhy and I will make much further progress together, and soon I will present a closing argument and my conclusions. After that, do whatever you like in this thread; as long as you follow forum rules.

I will be "moderating" this thread, as it is my baby. If this goes off-topic too much, or if there is flaming, spam, trolling, ad hominem, etc.... I will ask a mod to close it. Please be careful with this thread.

So far the moderating staff is keeping up. We're all rather glad that nothing silly has derailed this thread. SF

Vuk

04-01-2009, 12:23

I do not think so. He stated his opinion as fact quite clearly, from my perspective. He knows we are all burning in hell.

He can speak for himself, and has done so, and I don't believe it is the same as what you are saying.

My quarrel with Rhy is that he knows what God wants, he does not think he knows.

I'll admit that I think wording (and perhaps miswording) has led to unecassary misunderstandings. I could be wrong about Rhyf, but I think that his mistake was not not realising that he could be wrong, but not stating it.

I have repeatedly stated that I could be wrong. Repeatedly. In almost every post here.

I believe strongly, but Rhyfelwyr states that he knows that morality flows from Christianity alone, and that non-Christians burn in hell.

He didn't qualify it with an opinion, he stated it as fact.

Belief that you are right, and belief that you KNOW you are right, that is the difference.

You are intentionally avoiding this difference now? Please state you understand the difference.

No, I am not avoiding it. I think though that line is quite blurred the way you worded it. I would say instead a belief that you are right, and a belief that you cannot be wrong. Here is where what I was saying about foundations comes in. As long as the foundations for the faith is good, then a Christian MUST believe unconditionally in his faith and KNOW that God is beyond reproach.
I think that a Christian knows (or should know) though more than anyone just how wrong THEY can be, and not doubt God, but doubt themselves and their understandings, and pray and search for a better understanding. Do you see what I mean? In Christian faith (since that is what we are discussing in conection with Rhyf) you HAVE to be sure 100% that God is infallible, BUT that does not mean that you believe that you cannot be wrong, because God is the perfect one, not you. Also a good Christian takes into account the faults that have resulted from mistranslations. God's word is not imperfect in anyway, but the manuscripts we have make it hard to understand God's word exactly. I think Rhyf understands that HE himself can be very wrong in his beliefs, and that his surity was in God's word, and not necassarily that he was interpreting it 100% correctly for sure (I am not saying he does not believe that he is translating it correctly, but that I think he is open to the possibility)

Wrong. I do not believe that anything can be proven beyond all doubt, but things can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and there is a difference between the two, and there is a difference between proven beyond a reasonable doubt and plain opinion as well.

Please signify you see a difference between these three distinct concepts.

Definately, and I think that there is a hierarchy to it.
1 (lowest) Plain opinion
2 Proven beyond reasonable doubt
3 Proven beyong all doubt

I think that humans are willing to admit that the first level is opinion, because they know themselves that there is a good chance they could be wrong.
When something is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to someone though, I think this is what makes the basis for faith. The foundational ideas of our faith need to be proven beyond reasonably doubt to us in order for us to have faith. They really are what makes up faith, not the third level. The third level I believe is when you form so high an opinion of yourself that you refuse to see that you could be wrong. A christian (and I think Rhyf would agree with me here) will admit that Christianity cannot be proven, which is WHY you need faith. Faith is the admittance that something cannot be proven beyond all doubt, and it is based on believes that you think are beyong reasonable doubt.

That would lead to an entirely offtopic discussion.

Vuk, I get what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're acknowledging what my argument is about, nor what the thread topic is about; the difference between faith and reason, as we've been defining it for this entire thread.

The difference between "knowing" something as "fact" when it is not proven beyond all doubt, not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not attempted to be proven, not attempted to be challenged, not even once begun to be doubted at all...... and knowing something is your opinion.

There ARE those who say that their opinion must be fact and that all other opinions, indeed, all things considered "factual" by reasonable evidence and reasonable doubt, are all lies compared to their knowledge of God, which is inherently their own opinion alone, without a foundation.

Whether that holds true for you or not, is not the discussion. You have religious belief, but you don't believe in it so much that you say "I cannot be wrong", or worse "God said it"
Any human being who says "God said it" has got a lot of explaining to do.
I think that I DO understand your argument ATPG, and my counter-argument to it is summed up in the spoiler above. I made this to respond to what you said here though. I think the two statements are completely different. One is claiming that you are infallible, and the other is stating what you believe God wants. If you have a faith in God based on evidence and concepts that have been proven to you beyond reasonable doubt, then you will not question God (unless that foundation is taken down). That is not the same though as not questioning yourself. I DO think that God is right about everything, and that if He said it it is good, but that is NOT the same as saying that I cannot be wrong. Do you know what I mean?

Bottom line, Vuk; my quarrel is not with you, it is with those who believe their opinions are unquestionably the word of God almighty.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 12:53

One is claiming that you are infallible, and the other is stating what you believe God wants. If you have a faith in God based on evidence and concepts that have been proven to you beyond reasonable doubt, then you will not question God (unless that foundation is taken down). That is not the same though as not questioning yourself. I DO think that God is right about everything, and that if He said it it is good, but that is NOT the same as saying that I cannot be wrong. Do you know what I mean?

Ah, but you cannot know for a fact what God wants.

And belief that you know for a fact what God wants is inherently dangerous, because it removes your ability to question yourself.

I think that YOU get it, Vuk, but I think that other "100% certain based on God's Word" kind of people don't.

This is going to be a rather silly rant... please excuse it, as it is off-topic somewhat and can be safely ignored. No rebuttal necessary.
Belief that god wants you to do something, is of course, different from believing that you know for a fact that God wants you to do something. I did not sense such hesitation or openness from Rhyfelwyr's posts; I felt they were statements that he knew God wanted such and such a thing, but they were his opinions; I wanted there to be a distinction between the two, and I wanted to point out that there is no way to know what God wants; there is no evidence, there is no proof, there is no rational foundation thereof.

The Bible and Jesus are cited as evidence, but the Bible was written by man, voted on by man, translated by man, manufactured by man, and is open to interpretation, even Rhyfelwyr agrees; so it is hardly factual. Jesus may have existed, and may have thought himself a prophet, and may have actually died as stated in the Bible. However, he could have been just a man. There were lots of people back then who were considered the "savior". I especially love all the re-used references to "how do you know he is God?", for example, all the parallels between Jesus, the virgin-born son of God, and other virgin-born "saviors" and gods.

It was all the rage back then to be born to a virgin. That's how you knew they were Godly. And it happened many, many times before Jesus, according to historical records; many people purported to be the virgin-born son of someone. It was part of legends and religions and folklore for thousands of years.

Ultimately, there is no evidence that there is God, or what he wants. All the things cited are not evidence that concludes anything, much of it is very questionable in itself, but none of it leads to any sort of scientific conclusion. There are tons of examples of "proofs" in other religions, too. Check out the Scientology *Religion* and their E-Meter, which proves you have thetans in your body. Check out astrology... many things are cited as proof that astrology is real, but they are coincidences all, or nothing more than trumped up anecdotal evidence. "Real" psychics, for example... studies are funded to see if people have psychic powers, and out of thousands of candidates, some of them are statistically unusual. Which, according to statistics, is bound to happen, and so... it's not unusual at all. Look! He got 37 answers right in a row! That's proof, for sure.

Pseudosciences are everywhere, and if people want to be entertained by them; whatever. The issue I have is comparing pseudoscience with actual science. The religions most commonly mentioned here are not based on proof at all, and any "evidence" is not remotely scientific. Historical evidence points towards there being a man who could be considered Jesus, but that is not 100% conclusive, and because these are anecdotal accounts which provided no evidence, no repeatable experiments, and no miracles have been seen since, and Jesus isn't flying around the world on a magic carpet saving people from dying, I tend to disbelieve he was anything more than a man, because people claim to be God all the time.

Why this one man? I suppose he had a pretty rational-sounding philosophy. Sometimes I think I have a pretty rational philosophy, too... but if anyone murdered in my name, or tried to convert others to my viewpoint using threats and violence, or if people perverted my message, I would be ticked off. If Jesus was here, he would be appalled, I think, at the state of modern Christianity as a whole; in particular with the hypocrisy of all these "money changers" blaming the very people the loaned money to for the economic collapse, and all the deregulators and buisinessmen who stole billions and got away with it, and wars based on God, and sexual scandals involving teachers and priests and politicians and rampant adultery, violence, sexism, racism, prejudice, intolerance, gang violence, civil wars, hunger, persecution, disease, homelessness.... etc. I really rather think homosexuality would be down near the bottom, next to "wear nice shoes when you go to a wedding", but some seem to believe it is the make or break "end all" most evil sin. Especially since in the Bible, Jesus defends a prostitute (in my mind, much much worse) by saying he who is without sin...

In my mind, he argued against the very persecution behavior engaged in by many Christians for their "social causes" which don't affect society one billionth of the way greed and lust for power do. Jesus would probably be appalled, but I can't speak for Jesus; I only know that I am.

People are flawed, flawed human beings. I see, as an outsider looking in, that when these flawed human beings come into contact with the idea that God can transform them into better people than they are, and make them better than others, they don't try to self-improve... they focus on condemning those different from them, converting the unbelievers, and, I would argue, quite smugly and snobbishly note how they and not anyone else will receive Paradise at the end of their lives. Worse, they force their opinions onto others, and try to legislate their unscientific beliefs as laws, and take away the rights and freedoms of others.

If mankind and this earth is full of sinners, so what? You know what is right, you get into heaven, God is supposed to clean things up, it's not your job. Either convince them using reason, convert them to your faith, or allow them to live differently from you in peace. Legislating religion as law for the mortal world is wrong because it does not give reason-based argument for why it must be done, and all opposing views are seen as damnable heresy.

That is why religious and faith-based opinion should stay out of politics, because it prevents rational debate, discussion, and honest disagreement.

Rhyfelwyr

04-01-2009, 13:01

To clarify, I have absolute faith in God, and I KNOW beyond all doubt of His existence. This faith will not allow for any reasoning to the contrary. However, this faith in itself is a result of reasoning, enabled in turn by God; and given the revelation that comes with being born again, it would be entirely unreasonable not to have faith. I hold to this greater truth when evidence challenges the minor details of it, the greater truth must change before my faith does. But we are not here to discuss whether or not I am right, simply whether or not such faith is dangerous. It is because that I argued that faith can be no more dangerous than the belief system it ascribes to, that we have to discuss individual faiths. Until every belief system can be proven to be dangerous, I don't think faith can always be said to be either.

So I think Vuk and ATPG are both half-right in understanding where I'm coming from, in that I won't admit to being wrong as Vuk said, but neither is my faith blind as ATPG suggested.

Also, on other thing I would like to clarify: I do not deny that people can be moral according to ATPG's definition of the term. The issue is that I see morality as being something greater than he does, and it is that definition of morality which people fail to meet.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 13:17

Vuk

04-01-2009, 13:21

As honest as I live and breath ATPG, I would love to start a seperate debate up with you on that post some time. (the off topic bit you spoiled) Unfortunately, I do not have time for debates now (I was supposed to have been studying my language lessons all this time, I have an exam next Monday :P), but after May, if you would be willing to pursue that point, I would be very happy to debate it with you.
I do not have time anymore, and I think much of the heat is out of this debate anyway, so I will forgo responding to you guys' last two posts and bow out.
ATPG, I strongly disagree with you on many subjects, but from what I can tell debating with you here, you are honest, intelligent, and have good intentions. It has been a pleasure. :bow:

Vuk

04-01-2009, 13:38

I believe Rhyfelwyr has proven my point about knowing something that a person cannot know being Faith, not mere belief, and the difference between them is staggering.

I am the skeptic, Vuk is the believer, and Rhyfelwyr has unrelenting faith, which I consider dangerous and destructive.

You stated that you believe that morality comes from Christianity alone. :shrug:

This is something I know (pretty darn sure) to be untrue, because it existed before Christ.

Darnnit ATPG, you just keep luring me back in. :clown:
I think there are two points here that are confused on. First of all, I still think that you misunderstand Rhyf (and perhaps he has not done a good enough job of explaining himself). As a Christian, I think he takes certain things for granted and does not feel the need to explain them, and perhaps this is where the confusion is coming from. I think he is talking about believing what God says, not about believing that he is always right about what God says. I PMed him and asked him, and I think his PM did a better job of explaining what he meant.
I think that you guys are both using very different definitions of both Faith and Morality. (remember how much hard work it took for us to reach an understanding on terms :P)
I think he is not talking about general morality, but Christian morality when he says that.

Also, on other thing I would like to clarify: I do not deny that people can be moral according to ATPG's definition of the term. The issue is that I see morality as being something greater than he does, and it is that definition of morality which people fail to meet.
I think he is referring to trying your best to do what is right, and trying your best to do what you think is right. As a Christian you have to believe that God tells you perfectly how to be good, and even though you will constantly fail to live up to it, you must strive to. People without the word of God though, can try to do good, and may end up striving to live just how a Christian should, or may end up trying to do harmful things thinking that they are good. Communism is a great example. It has the very best of intentions, and I truely believe that for the common person who believed in it, it was a sense of morality that motivated them, but it is NOT what is right (according to my belief in Christianity at least), and in an effort to be moral without Christianity, they missed the mark (by Christian standards at least - the ones that Rhyf was using).
Sincere desires to do good (wiping harmful groups of people out to protect the innocent races for instance) have often been done with a sense of morality, but that can be misguided. A Christian believes that God has given you the blueprint to perfect life, and there is no other way to live completely perfectly than through Christianity. (which is not to say that ANYONE except Jesus Christ met the mark or ever will)
EDIT: Of course human error in interpreting God's will can also lead to people striving to do bad thinking it is good, as history has shown. That does not make God's word any less perfect though, it simply means that we as people are very imperfect and need to strive harder and seek God's wisdom to understand His scripture better.

Fixiwee

04-01-2009, 15:31

To clarify, I have absolute faith in God, and I KNOW beyond all doubt of His existence.
Prove or it's an empty statement.

This faith will not allow for any reasoning to the contrary.
Why do you state your point on the issue faith here then? If it is something that cannot be denied or question you have achieved something that noone can argue with you. Hence posting about it is a waste of time.

However, this faith in itself is a result of reasoning, enabled in turn by God; and given the revelation that comes with being born again, it would be entirely unreasonable not to have faith.
Now why should faith be within reason in the first place? Because you say so? That's not reason. That's an opinion a priori. I think it cannot be unreasonable not to have faith.
We are judging our views by empirism not by rationalism

I hold to this greater truth when evidence challenges the minor details of it, the greater truth must change before my faith does.
Care to eleborate that? It does not make much sense to me. (Could be my fault)

but neither is my faith blind as ATPG suggested.
Care to elaborate on that too? It's easy too say "You are all wrong, I mean something completley different" without giving any details.

Also, on other thing I would like to clarify: I do not deny that people can be moral according to ATPG's definition of the term. The issue is that I see morality as being something greater than he does, and it is that definition of morality which people fail to meet.
"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
- Aristotle

Vuk

04-01-2009, 15:43

Prove or it's an empty statement.

He is not trying to prove it, he is explaining his beliefs, as requested.

Why do you state your point on the issue faith here then? If it is something that cannot be denied or question you have achieved something that noone can argue with you. Hence posting about it is a waste of time.

See above. He was asked about his faith and is explaining it.

Vuk

Fixiwee

04-01-2009, 16:03

With all due respect. I wasn't asking you but Rhyfelwyr.

Vuk

04-01-2009, 16:11

With all due respect. I wasn't asking you but Rhyfelwyr.

With all due respect, I was simply pointing out that you were taking what he said completely out of context. If you go back and read through the page you made the post on, I think you will answer your own questions.

Rhyfelwyr

04-01-2009, 16:18

Prove or it's an empty statement.

I cannot prove God's existence, only He can. I'm not capable of relaying the understanding I've been given. Kind of cheesy but its a bit like how they say it is with love - when you know you'll know. It's not even based on scientific evidence, you just know.

Why do you state your point on the issue faith here then? If it is something that cannot be denied or question you have achieved something that noone can argue with you. Hence posting about it is a waste of time.

But I'm not here to prove my faith is real. ATPG and myself are not here to 'convert' each other. We are here to argue whether or not my faith is dangerous.

Now why should faith be within reason in the first place? Because you say so? That's not reason. That's an opinion a priori. I think it cannot be unreasonable not to have faith.
We are judging our views by empirism not by rationalism

Everything we do we do by reason, or at least our understanding of it. If you act unreasonably, you must have reasoned to do it in the first place. When we have faith, we must first have reasoned to have that faith. And I don't mean sitting and trying to figure out whether or not God exists, and then saying "OK, I'll have faith in Him!", although some may do that. If God reveals to you understanding which is beyond your own capability, then it is quite reasonable to put your faith in Him, in the awareness that 'scientific evidence' might misguide your own weak mind in future when you do not have the understanding that comes with beig close to God (of course I believe He's always with us, just sometimes more directly than others). Whether or not you believe me, that is my reasoning.

Care to eleborate that? It does not make much sense to me. (Could be my fault)

Well if I know that God exists, I am not going to change my mind because someone thinks we have a common ancestor with apes and that proves the Bible is wrong. It might make me question my own interpretation of it, but not the existence of God Himself.

Care to elaborate on that too? It's easy too say "You are all wrong, I mean something completley different" without giving any details.

ATPG suggested with his leprechaun-god example that I have no idea about what I place my faith in, or why I do it. He argued that if I did then it was not faith. However I disagree, since I am well aware that God is out there, and so I know what I place my faith in. The faith fills the gaps in my understanding, it is the bridge between myself and my belief system, not the source of the belief system itself.

"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
- Aristotle

Maybe he was just very indoctrinated into the law? That would be the position of an atheist who does not believe that values exist beyond whatever people make of them.

Fixiwee

04-01-2009, 16:58

I cannot prove God's existence, only He can. I'm not capable of relaying the understanding I've been given. Kind of cheesy but its a bit like how they say it is with love - when you know you'll know. It's not even based on scientific evidence, you just know.

If you cannot prove Gods existence, how do you know there is one? Yeah I know you are totaly convinced by your belives and my words are waste of time.
But I think, with all due respect to your belives, sometimes it cannot be wrong to question every bit and piece of your self, your beheviour and belives.

But I'm not here to prove my faith is real.
Of course you're not. Because you can't. Nobody can. That's the point I'm trying to make.

ATPG and myself are not here to 'convert' each other. We are here to argue whether or not my faith is dangerous.

Fair enough. That's a valid topic for discussion. Allthough I fear the topic is far too diverse and complex to come to a common solution.

Well if you excuse me. A friend just called and needs some help. Nothing serious, but I cannot complete my reply. Don't worry, I'm not chickening out, just need to focus on RL.

Peace.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2009, 19:27

Ok, now that the thread has been opened up, lets look at your proposition. Essentially, as far as I can see, you argue that Reason is superior to Faith.

"Winning" in this context involves several things for me.

1. Pointing out that faith, unbalanced by reason, and especially DOUBT, can be dangerous.

In order for faith to be "balanced by reason" Reason must be of equal status as faith.

2. Pointing out the difference between faith and religion; religion is theory of the supernatural, whereas faith is belief without doubt, or in spite of doubt. One isn't necessarily dangerous, the other is.

Any "religion" is merely a philosophical system, including atheism. Religion has no relation to Faith, except that most religions demand it of followers.

3. Pointing out that faith cannot be used as a foundation for rational argument, because it's inherently self-contradictory. FAITH implies the irrational, which is belief that you KNOW when you cannot know. That's different from HOPE, which is belief that it is possible, but you accept it may not be true. DOUBT allows both belief, leaps of faith, and hope... but not blindness.

You are confusing Faith and Knowledge. Faith is not Knowledge, and only Knowledge can negate Hope. Doubt, on the other hand, is the antithesis of Hope.

4. If I can convince any of the faithful; they don't need to give up on their religion. In my opinion, all they really should do (if my opinion matters) is they should not take the stance that they KNOW God's mind, or KNOW what will happen when we die, because that is 100% false. Even if you were correct, you still don't KNOW for a fact until you're dead. If you allow for the possibility of being wrong, that is both reasonable and rational, and is the foundation of wisdom. If you remove that possibility, I believe that you are being... (forgive me... I don't intend this as it sounds...) a little bit foolish.

If you can "convince any of the faithful" as you put it you destroy their belief system. Faith is largely, as you yourself have said, something you either have or don't. Ultimately you believe that there is no God, and that that is the correct belief. Since you believe in right answers, you actually want us all to agree with you. So lets not pull our punches here.

I'm not going to treat with your objections to Christianity here, they are not relevant.

In regards to your arguement that faith cannot be a basis for rational arguement, I contend that it is the only basis for rational arguement.

1. "Reason" is essentially the aplication of a form of logic. Your logic is atheistic, it does not include any allowence for a thinking God, or an intervening God.

2. Your conviction that this "Reason" is superior to Faith is unprovable, you can deploy only subjective evidence. Reason cannot be used to prove itself, any more than Faith can.

3. Therefore, your adherence to Reason is a matter of Faith.

4. Therefore, if you disprove the validity of Faith you negate your own use of Reason.

5. Therefore, Reason is dependant on Faith.

6. Therefore, Faith is ultimately superior to Reason.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 19:30

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2009, 19:50

PVC-

I believe you've ignored what I mean by faith and reason, and the definitions I've been using. As this is a more formal debate, we are arguing two different things when we cannot agree on terminology.

I've clarified my position repeatedly, and you're applying a different definition of faith than I am. As such, we cannot debate.

I am debating your definition, since I am a man of Faith I have that right. If you claim not to be a man of Faith you cannot demand that those who are such conform to your definition. I have ignored nothing, I simply reject your definition.

If you wish to regect my proposition, then I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Demonstrate that your adherence to Reason is not a matter of Faith.

If you cannot do so then Reason is not a fit tool to criticise Faith with.

However, that does not mean it is not a fit tool with which to debate different philosophical systems.

From your opening statement:

My opening statement is very brief; I contend that faith itself does not bring any merit, but that certain philosophical viewpoints are valid, invalid, or irrelevant. I also contend that objectivity and skepticism, a scientific and literal approach to philosophy and ethics and morality, is not only possible, but preferable to faith-based teachings and traditions. But I am not simply looking to advocate one is better than the other; I am genuinely curious to hear what the merits of faith are, from your perspective, and perhaps give examples of where faith has played a crucial and positive role in life.
Those parts in bold are philosophical stances, a scientific approach to anything requires an ordered and regular universe. The existence of such is a matter of Faith, which Einstein held and which Quantom Theory partly refutes by introducing a random element into physics.

Again, you are using Reason and Logic to combat Faith, your own claim, I contend that Reason and Logic require Faith.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 19:52

Then you have successfully given me some meat to chew apart. I will ponder and reply.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 20:10

A person's approach to life can differ in only a few key ways.

If I can clarify what I mean by each term:

Belief that they KNOW the truth of our existence: Faith
Belief that they KNOW there is no God or afterlife: Atheism
Belief that one's own opinions are as much the truth as anyone else's: Subjectivism
Belief that they could be right about the truth of our existence, but admit they don't have all the answers: Belief
Belief that they could have some answers right, but are not convinced: Agnostic
Belief that nothing is totally proven, but science allows for more educated guesses than faith, and that Truth exists outside of our little opinions, independent of what we WANT to believe, there forever unbending or unchanging, no matter if we like it or not: Objectivism
Belief that things aren't proven, and no one has the correct answers: Skepticism
Reluctance to believe anything 100%, but allowing for the possibility: Doubt
Belief that no one has the truth, because truth does not exist: Nihilism

Statements which are unsupported by reason but stated as fact: Opinon
Statements which are supported by evidence, self-evident and non-contradictory reasoning, or have been conclusively proven beyond reasonable doubt: Reasonable Opinion (referred to erroneously as fact, but is much closer to being fact than base opinions are)
Theories which cannot be proven true because they relate to the supernatural: Religion
Theories which can be tested, proven beyond reasonable doubt, repeated, and can give us predictions with great accuracy, and form the body of human "knowledge" to date: Science
Knowledge: Fundamentally sound and proven beyond reasonable doubt, however, can be disproved, and there is room for evidence which contradicts such knowledge.
Religious Doctrine: Statements which usually do not allow for modification due to evidence or lack thereof.

Faith in this context means not religion or belief, but the belief that one knows with absolute certainty, as Rhyfelwyr does.

____________________________

I am using these definitions to clarify the discussion. If you disagree with these definitions, then you may offer your own, and I will MAKE UP a word and define it as such, and use that word.

1. "Reason" is essentially the aplication of a form of logic. Your logic is atheistic, it does not include any allowence for a thinking God, or an intervening God.

2. Your conviction that this "Reason" is superior to Faith is unprovable, you can deploy only subjective evidence. Reason cannot be used to prove itself, any more than Faith can.

3. Therefore, your adherence to Reason is a matter of Faith.

4. Therefore, if you disprove the validity of Faith you negate your own use of Reason.

5. Therefore, Reason is dependant on Faith.

6. Therefore, Faith is ultimately superior to Reason.

1. My logic is objective, and my religion is not atheism. I am a skeptic, and a non-religious person. I never said I believed there was no God, I simply disagree with the interpretation of God found in Christian belief which seems contradictory to me, especially between the New and Old Testaments, and within the context of hell, the Devil, the problem of evil, infinite mercy, compassion and love.... etc. I disagree with your statement number 1 because it does not apply to me.

2. Unprovable beyond unreasonable doubt, perhaps. But reason is superior to believing one is always correct, that's more or less a fact.

3. No, it is an application of skepticism and objectivism, which is WHOLLY different from faith, and requires NO belief.

4. Incorrect, due to the reasons above.

5. Incorrect, due to the reasons above.

6. If that were so, why do you use reason to prove that faith is superior to reason? Why not use faith?

Rhyfelwyr

04-01-2009, 21:00

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 21:04

ATPG, if you accept that we must decide through reason to have faith (how else do we become faithful?), why do you treat them as two completely opposed worldviews? Reason is the at the root of every decision we make, it is the natural way of functioning and interacting with the world. On the other hand, faith is a product of reason, since you must use reason in order to take the decision to have faith. Therefore, reason is at the heart of faith, but not vice-versa (other than our faith in reason).

We are treating faith as if it is the opposite of reason, but since faith is based upon reason, faith is really just the reasoned decision to ignore the use of reason when examining future evidence. Under certain circumstances, surely that in itself is a reasonable thing to do? Therefore there is in fact no such thing as faith, it is not an opposite force to reason. It is just another product of our reasoning, which has been granted its own term.

I disagree. Making a choice to have faith is not the same thing as reason, and choosing to abandon reason and accepting faith instead of it, is not reason; it's choosing to replace reason with unfounded belief. Faith is the antithesis of reason as I've defined it. Once again, people are using different definitions, either mistakenly or to dodge my points; I won't repeat them again.

By definition, reason does not allow faith, and faith does not allow reason; but you can use your own judgment to choose to believe in one or the other, or try to have your cake and eat it too by applying reason at times, but citing faith in other times.

Faith is not a form of reason, it is a form of belief without allowing for being wrong. That's not reasonable at all. Your argument is disproved under those very reasonable definitions.

Rhyfelwyr

04-01-2009, 21:42

I disagree. Making a choice to have faith is not the same thing as reason, and choosing to abandon reason and accepting faith instead of it, is not reason; it's choosing to replace reason with unfounded belief. Faith is the antithesis of reason as I've defined it. Once again, people are using different definitions, either mistakenly or to dodge my points; I won't repeat them again.

By definition, reason does not allow faith, and faith does not allow reason; but you can use your own judgment to choose to believe in one or the other, or try to have your cake and eat it too by applying reason at times, but citing faith in other times.

Faith is not a form of reason, it is a form of belief without allowing for being wrong. That's not reasonable at all. Your argument is disproved under those very reasonable definitions.

If we accept that reason is the only method of thinking (with the only alternative being a lack of it as opposed to a true opposite - the result of a total lack of reason being that no decisions can ever be made, since we would have no mechanism by which to make them), then how can faith be anything but reasonable? Being reasonable doesn't make you right, behind every wrong decision we make lies our own form of reasoning; I'm not arguing that I was correct to choose to have faith, simply that I reasoned to do so. This doesn't conflict with the definitions of the terms we have been using either, the matter at hand is from where they originate. Reason is the base from which we function, faith is not an alternative. Faith is only ever a direct product of reason. Nor is it the abandonment of it, it is simply the reasonable decision that you have sufficient understanding at a given point in time to know of a greater truth, and that no evidence presented in future will be sufficient to challenge this belief system. Whether or not you believe one person can ever have such assurance is a different matter entirely.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 21:56

You seem to conflate reason with choice.

One can choose to be devoid of reasoning. It's simple: Just ignore all facts, evidence, and reasoning. That would be the definition of being unreasonable. As such, it is not a form of reasoning. It is a form of stubbornness and it is a form of insanity.

You can choose, with flawed reasoning, to stop being reasonable. You can cite your reasons for doing so, but once you make the choice to ignore reasoning, you are no longer using reason. It is much like someone who commits suicide: You can come up with crazy reasons to commit suicide, but once you have done so, you cannot be reasonable, and you've effectively terminated your ability to reason (or do anything, for that matter). The idea is; you can make a choice, you can cite reasons, but if you live based on a philosophy which ignores reasoning, then you cannot call it reason. You must call it faith or belief. Which is what you do. But you also call it reasonable, when it is not, by definition.

You can CHOOSE things, and when you CHOOSE to have faith, and ignore reasoning, that does not ipso facto make you reasonable. In fact, it makes you unreasonable by definition. That is why they are opposites.

Life and death are pretty much opposites, but when one is alive, they can choose to die. That does not mean that they aren't opposites. When one is using reason, they can choose to have no more reason, but that does not mean they are continuing to be reasonable. In fact, it's just plain obvious they aren't being reasonable. Period.

There really is no debating this point, because it is self-evident, by your own logic, by your own words, by your agreed definitions of the word, you ARE NOT BEING REASONABLE. You can argue, but you won't make any headway.

Rhyfelwyr

04-01-2009, 22:19

But reason and choice are inseperable. Even if you choose to abandon reason in future, is that in itself not a decision founded upon reason? You can call it a choice instead, but that does not hide the fact that there must be reason behind it. You can't be born faithful, we are all born reasonable. Therefore, the choice to have faith must be founded upon reason.

You are making an artificial distinction between reasoning and choice. Reason is the way in which our mind works, it has no opposite - every choice we make is based upon it, even the choice to abandon it (for we still had reason before we abandoned it). You can call the abandonment of reason to evidence that challenges our worldview a 'choice', but ultimately that choice will have been made using reason. Therefore, 'faith' is a reasonable concept, you just believe it to be a generally poor decision to make.

Though faith exludes future reason, the fact that it is based on reason means that it is in itself a form of reasoning - one that concludes that no further reasoning is necessary.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2009, 22:29

Belief that they KNOW the truth of our existence: Faith
Belief that they KNOW there is no God or afterlife: Atheism

Then we can agree that you can have an Atheistic Faith? Or more accurately an atheistic fanaticism?

Theories which cannot be proven true because they relate to the supernatural: Religion

Ok, this can't be "Religion". For starters Religions are philosophical systems, not theories. There are beliefs in Religions that relate to the Supernatural, the totality is far more complex. Further, this makes Atheism a religion because it is atheory of the Supernatural, or lack thereof.

Theories which can be tested, proven beyond reasonable doubt, repeated, and can give us predictions with great accuracy, and form the body of human "knowledge" to date: Science

This would exclude Darwinism and the Big Bang.

Religious Doctrine: Statements which usually do not allow for modification due to evidence or lack thereof.

This certainly isn't Christian Doctrine, which is frequently modified in light of evidence

Faith in this context means not religion or belief, but the belief that one knows with absolute certainty, as Rhyfelwyr does.

That makes Faith the holding of a belief, not a belief itself. Further, what you are actually defining (the unquestioned holding of a belief) is fanaticism.

I am using these definitions to clarify the discussion. If you disagree with these definitions, then you may offer your own, and I will MAKE UP a word and define it as such, and use that word.

Would it not be better if we were to agree of definitions. Words are signs, using different words changes the meaning.

1. My logic is objective, and my religion is not atheism. I am a skeptic, and a non-religious person. I disagree with your statement number 1 because it does not apply to me.

You cannot have an objective view of yourself. Such a statement assumes that you have an accurate perspective of the world and that therefore those who do not share your views are less perceptive and accurate. If it genuinely hold this view you are impossible to debate with because you will not accept the posibility that your view of the world is wrong.

If fact, this would make your perception of your logic an article of Faith, as defined by you. This would prove my point "3".

Further, the statement does apply to you because:

A: You have admitted to using logic.

B: That logic does not take account of a Divine Being as a variable as far as I can see, this makes it atheistic. This has no bearing on your theistic beliefs, merely your application of your logical system; there is a profound difference.

I fail to see the rellevance of the Christian God here.

2. Unprovable beyond unreasonable doubt, perhaps. But reason is superior to believing one is always correct, that's more or less a fact.

"Statements which are unsupported by reason but stated as fact: Opinon"

Unless you can demonstrate this it can only be a matter of belief, held on Faith. Faith comes from the Latin fidelis which comes from fido which is "trust".

This is primarily why I have made the distinction, because Faith is seperate from belief. I can believe the sky is blue, but the strength of that Belief is measured by Faith. You have created an absurdity from your own definitions:

Belief that they could be right about the truth of our existence, but admit they don't have all the answers: Belief
Belief that they could have some answers right, but are not convinced: Agnostic

You use the word belief correctly to name your definitions, but then use it differently as a definition. This creates a philosophical inconsistancy, particually because you have repeated the same definition twice (above).

Believing you do not know is litterally Ag-nosticism. The extent to which you are agnostic or otherwise is a matter of the strength of your Faith.

3. No, it is an application of skepticism and objectivism, which is WHOLLY different from faith, and requires NO belief.

Adherence to any philosophical system is a matter of Faith, skepticism is a belief (you have defined it as such). If skepticism is a belief it is held on Faith. Therefore my point stands, you hold your beliefs on Faith just like everybody else.

4. Incorrect, due to the reasons above.

I restate: If Faith is invalid it is impossible to hold a belief, therefore it is impossible to adhere to a belief. The validity of Reason is a belief (it claims to be either self-authenticating or self-evident; identical to fanatical adherence to scripture in this respect).

5. Incorrect, due to the reasons above.

I refute, and restate as before, due to the arguement above.

6. If that were so, why do you use reason to prove that faith is superior to reason? Why not use faith?

Faith is not a philosophical system, it has no "working parts" so to speak, it cannot be "used" actively in that sense.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2009, 22:37

You seem to conflate reason with choice.

One can choose to be devoid of reasoning. It's simple: Just ignore all facts, evidence, and reasoning. That would be the definition of being unreasonable. As such, it is not a form of reasoning. It is a form of stubbornness and it is a form of insanity.

Insanity is a detachment from reality. If you know you are ignoring evidence you remian sane.

You can CHOOSE things, and when you CHOOSE to have faith, and ignore reasoning, that does not ipso facto make you reasonable. In fact, it makes you unreasonable by definition. That is why they are opposites.

Reasoning is subjective, there is no such thing as being "unreasonable" unless you actually abandon reasoning. That means you stop thinging entirely. Regardless, all choices are made using reason, even flipping a coin to make the choice is an exercise in using reason. You reason to abandon the choice to chance because you don't want to make it.

There really is no debating this point, because it is self-evident, by your own logic, by your own words, by your agreed definitions of the word, you ARE NOT BEING REASONABLE. You can argue, but you won't make any headway.

You have ceased to be reasonable, you cannot claim a self-evident point without recourse to Faith.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 22:43

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 22:48

You have ceased to be reasonable, you cannot claim a self-evident point without recourse to Faith.

This statement is true.

That is a true statement because it does not undermine it's own logic. Faith need not be involved.

Self-evident truth.

This statement is false.

That is a paradoxical statement because it undermines its own logic. You would have to ignore reasoning and logic to believe that the statement is true or false. That is self-evidently an irrational statement.

Faith, again, need not be involved in self-evident truths, because the evidence is itself. Thus, self-evident.

By the way, being unreasonable is being unreasonable and that is not reasonable, by self-evident definition. Choosing to be unreasonable is by definition, unreasonable.

Self-Evident. True. You cannot debate this.

Rhyfelwyr

04-01-2009, 22:56

Reasoning is subjective, there is no such thing as being "unreasonable" unless you actually abandon reasoning. That means you stop thinging entirely. Regardless, all choices are made using reason, even flipping a coin to make the choice is an exercise in using reason. You reason to abandon the choice to chance because you don't want to make it.

Thank you! :2thumbsup:

So, this means that not only does ATPG place faith in the use of reason as the best system to comprehend and function in reality, the choice to have other forms of faith is in turn built upon that reason, and so may be said to be reasonable (if not necessarily correct) in itself.

So, faith is not in fact the antithesis of reason, but is instead something complementary to it - not only is the application of reason based upon faith in the validity of reasoning, but faith in greater truths in turn is a form of reasoning.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 23:01

You both are ignoring the fact that abandoning reason is the cessation of reason, not a compliment to reason.

It's self-evidently true that this is so. You can choose to abandon reason, but a lack of reasoning is not a rival methodology of determining things. The absence of faith is not the same thing as faith. The absence of ice cream is not the same thing as ice cream. The absence of logic and reasoning is not the same thing as logic and reasoning. The absence of a God is not the same thing as God.

They are opposite by definition, by self-evident logic. It is true because of it's own definition, therefore it cannot also be the negative of itself.

Zero does not equal one.

Rhyfelwyr

04-01-2009, 23:07

PVC:

I think that your argument is full of holes. So many of them, in fact, that I do not care to continue. I would request that someone besides me respond to your post, because it, on more than one occasion, caused me to have severe frustration, and I worry I might say something which is less than a rebuttal.

You continue to abuse definitions and argue that I am an atheist, which is false, and you create many logical loopholes and red herrings, and frankly, I can't respond to all of them. Not right now, anyway. I need to take a break from it, because once again, you choose to use different definitions, apply your own definitions and ignore mine, phrase my statements according to your definitions and not the ones I stated clearly, and intended to be read as such. You are putting words into my mouth, and intentionally smearing the meaning of what I am saying.

I do not believe your response was an honest attempt at a rebuttal, but an attempt to argue your case while ignoring pertinent facts, and attempting to push your opinion that I am an atheist upon the discussion where it has no bearing and also happens to be false and generally a red-herring.

I again, call for someone else to respond, because I simply don't know how to express myself any clearer than I have. I cannot accept your definition of faith, because it is one you brought to the table, and it is different from the one Rhyfelwyr and I are using.

I reject your definitions. If you continue to use them, I can safely ignore them, because they aren't what I mean, and I've stated clearly what I mean. When you apply your definitions, contrary to mine, to my words, when I already defined them for you, that is the disconnect, and I cannot repair that hole in your logic; you must do it yourself. I grow weary of trying.

:medievalcheers:

In fairness, it is not so different to when you made an artificial distinction between reason and choice to disprove that the decision to have faith is nothing other than a reasonable decision in itself.

While you base many of your arguments on the importance of reason, I place even greater emphasis upon it. For while to you reason is one philosophical system through which to view things, to me it is the only way of functioning (apart from the faith we place in reason itself) - so that to be unreasonable is not to place blind faith in something (since that requires reason to do, and as such will always have been a reasonable decision, albeit the last one you made - it simply has a life-long timespan), but, as PVC put it, to stop you thinking entirely. To me, reason has no rival, it is the only way to function; it is the root of all philosophical systems, and implicit in everything I say. Faith is just a handy term for one type of reasonable decision, which does not necessarily mean I disagree with the definition you gave of it.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 23:11

In fairness, it is not so different to when you made an artificial distinction between reason and choice to disprove that the decision to have faith is nothing other than a reasonable decision in itself.

rea·son

NOUN:

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Notes at because, why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
4. The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
5. Good judgment; sound sense.
6. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
7. Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

VERB:
rea·soned , rea·son·ing , rea·sons

VERB:
intr.

1. To use the faculty of reason; think logically.
2. To talk or argue logically and persuasively.
3. Obsolete To engage in conversation or discussion.

choice

NOUN:

1. The act of choosing; selection.
2. The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
3. One that is chosen.
4. A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
5. The best or most preferable part.
6. Care in choosing.
7. An alternative.

ADJECTIVE:
choic·er , choic·est

1.
1. Of very fine quality.
2. Appealing to refined taste.
2. Selected with care.
3. Of the U.S. Government grade of meat higher than good and lower than prime.

Source: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/choice

The distinction between reason and choice is not imagined. They are different words. You are wrong by definition of the words.

Do you concede your point is wrong?

Rhyfelwyr

04-01-2009, 23:15

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 23:16

If reason is:

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Notes at because, why.

And achoice is:

1. The act of choosing; selection.

So, our choices are simply actions, which are reflective of our reasoning, which is the motive for those actions.

If you make a choice (such as to have faith), then reasoning is behind it.

False.

You do not have to have reasons behind your actions. You can act unreasonably. This is not a new concept that I imagined up myself to prove a point. You purport that irrationality is the same as rationality, and choice is the same as logic.

You are wrong by definition.

Rhyfelwyr

04-01-2009, 23:27

False.

You do not have to have reasons behind your actions. You can act unreasonably. This is not a new concept that I imagined up myself to prove a point. You purport that irrationality is the same as rationality, and choice is the same as logic.

You are wrong by definition.

It is clearly not false.

No action, ever taking by anybody, has had no reasoning at all behind it. Poor reasoning perhaps, due on their part to a lack of ability to piece the information together properly.

I purport that irrationality is simply a man-made term to describe when people make rational decisions that are not what others expected them to be. For once, PVC and myself are agreed, in that to be irrational is to cease being rational at all - the effects of which are not some sort of anti-rationality, but instead a total lack of it, indeeed the lack of the ability to make any decision at all. Every irrational decision, like the man that went nuts and butchered his wife, was made using reasoning according to their interpretation of the situation. We call it irrational for the sake of convenience, not because they make decisions by some opposite force. Nor can they make decisions by a lack of such a force as rationality, because then they could not think at all, and could not act at all as a result of it. There is one force by which we act - reason. It has no opposite, and a lack of it would produce nothing at all. That is why reason means more to me than it does to you - to you it is just one of many ways to function.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2009, 23:33

He isn't wrong by his own use. He is using Reason the verb and Choice the noun, so that you use Reason to make a choice.

In any case, I am trying to engage with you honestly, whether or not you choose to believe that or not depends on the level of faith you have in my integrity (it would seem you have very little faith in it.)

If you don't want to continue fine, I maintain that there are logical inconsistancies in your use of words and this damages your arguement. In particular I think your use of the word "belief" to define a set of propositions, and then using the same word again to designate one of those propositions, causes confusion. How am I to know wether you are refering to a belief or Belief as you define it?

However, if this upsets you so I shall change my definitions.

I replace the word Faith with its original synonym, "Trust", in my definitions.

So, now I say that you trust reason to be a sufficient guide to reality, and that is the same irrational basis as trust in God.

I also trust Reason, but I trust God as well. That is the last statement I will make of my beliefs here. I have not attempted to impinge your character, divert the debate or paint you an atheist. Further, I retract my self-identification as "a man of Faith" because I have no "Faith" as you define it.

Do not be so quick to take offence, especially when you have repeatedly slandered Christianity and called your primary interlocutor unreasonable and infered his insanity.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 23:37

If you make a choice (such as to have faith), then reasoning is behind it.

This is a logical fallacy.

I purport that irrationality is simply a man-made term to describe when people make rational decisions that are not what others expected them to be.

According to you, irrational means rational, logic means belief, reason means blind faith, choice means reason, and any number of any other false equations. You're wrong on so many levels, under so many definitions.

As such, I cannot debate with you on these points, because you are using false definitions which contradict themselves.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 23:40

Do not be so quick to take offence, especially when you have repeatedly slandered Christianity and called your primary interlocutor unreasonable and infered his insanity.

I have taken no offense; I am frustrated when someone repeatedly suggests a word means the inverse of itself or the void of itself.

A lack of ice cream does not equal ice cream. When one chooses not to engage in reasoning, that is a choice, not reason. When someone is not reasoning, they are not also reasoning. Zero does not equal one.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2009, 23:50

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 23:54

Frankly, you have impinged on my character and accused me of dishonesty because I do not automatically agree with your definitions. I have PM's Rhy and he and I will try to come up with an agreed definition of Faith.

Currently there are at least three in this thread.

In the meantime you might like to consider that I have said I have no Faith as you define it.

For the moment I shall use the word Trust and that is exactly the same value I place in my friends as I do in my God. It also has nothing to do with my religion, which is a reasoned philosophical system.

I did imply you weren't being honest, because I feel you seek to win the debate, not find the truth objectively. When a standard dictionary contradicts your stated definitions (and not by a little... by the inverse) then you aren't being reasonable.

You do not have to agree with me, but when you disagree with the actual definitions of words, then we have a problem.

I'm taking a break for today. I suggest my opposing advocates do the same, because we are moving around in circles, getting nowhere.

Rhyfelwyr

04-01-2009, 23:55

This is a logical fallacy.

If I have reasoning capabilites before I choose to place my faith in something, how then is my faith not a result of my reasoning?

According to you, irrational means rational, logic means belief, reason means blind faith, choice means reason, and any number of any other false equations. You're wrong on so many levels, under so many definitions.

As such, I cannot debate with you on these points, because you are using false definitions which contradict themselves.

No, according to me:

1. people only act by being rational, to be irrationality is not some opposite force by which we think, and it is not a lack of rationality either, since then we could not act at all. Everyone is rational according to how they percieve things in their own mind. Rationality/irrationality is a man-made distinction for the sake of convenience. I've explained why I think this, why don't you do the same?
2. I cannot comment on the "logic means belief" bit, since you use the word "belief" in such a variety of ways
3. Reason does not mean blind faith, but faith (as for the sake of convience we term it) can arise as a result of reason, though it only one of many outcomes. Reason is at the root of everything.
4. What I said is that our choices are a result of our reasoning, you apparently think a choice is something randomly generated in our head.

I am not using false definitions.

Askthepizzaguy

04-01-2009, 23:59

We will speak again more later.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-02-2009, 00:23

I did imply you weren't being honest, because I feel you seek to win the debate, not find the truth objectively. When a standard dictionary contradicts your stated definitions (and not by a little... by the inverse) then you aren't being reasonable.

You do not have to agree with me, but when you disagree with the actual definitions of words, then we have a problem.

I'm taking a break for today. I suggest my opposing advocates do the same, because we are moving around in circles, getting nowhere.

You did not imply, you outright accused. I naturally seek to win the debate, as do you I think. There would, however, be no point in "beating" you because that would not be winning. If you see inconsistancies in my arguement by all means exploit them. If you don't exploit them I'm not going to see them. If you do exploit them I will do one of two things.

1. Close the gap.

2. Concede the point.

Now, regarding definitions I have posted the OED's definitions of faith and trust because they reflect my cultural conditioning.

Faith, n

[a. OF. feid, feit (pronounced feihttp://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mbi/edh.gif, ? feihttp://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mbi/th.gif: see Suchier in Gröber's Grundriss Rom. Phil. I. 586), = Pr. fe (nom. fes), Sp., Pg. fé, It. fede:http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mb/em.gifL. fidem, f. root of fhttp://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mbi/imac.gifd-http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mbi/ebreve.gifre to trust. The later OF. form fei (whence mod.F. foi) was also adopted in ME., and survived in certain phrases down to 16th c.: see FAY (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/crossref?query_type=word&queryword=faith&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&search_id=wPNT-fiTvgl-14150&result_place=2&xrefword=fay&ps=n.&homonym_no=1) n.1
The L. fides, like its etymological cognate Gr. http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/sb/pi.gifhttp://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/sb/giacu.gifhttp://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/sb/sigma.gifhttp://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/sb/tau.gifhttp://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/sb/iota.gifhttp://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/sb/fsigma.gif, which it renders in the N.T., had the following principal senses: 1. Belief, trust. 2. That which produces belief, evidence, token, pledge, engagement. 3. Trust in its objective aspect, troth; observance of trust, fidelity.]

I. Belief, trust, confidence.
1. a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine). Const. in, http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mb/dag.gifof. In early use, only with reference to religious objects; this is still the prevalent application, and often colours the wider use.

b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority.

2. Phrases. to give faith: to yield belief to. to pin one's faith to or upon: to believe implicitly.

3. Theol. in various specific applications. a. Belief in the truths of religion; belief in the authenticity of divine revelation (whether viewed as contained in Holy Scripture or in the teaching of the Church), and acceptance of the revealed doctrines. b. That kind of faith (distinctively called saving or justifying faith) by which, in the teaching of the N.T., a sinner is justified in the sight of God. This is very variously defined by theologians (see quots.), but there is general agreement in regarding it as a conviction practically operative on the character and will, and thus opposed to the mere intellectual assent to religious truth (sometimes called speculative faith). c. The spiritual apprehension of divine truths, or of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof. By Christian writers often identified with the preceding; but not exclusively confined to Christian use. Often viewed as the exercise of a special faculty in the soul of man, or as the result of supernatural illumination.

Faith, v

a. intr. To place or rest one's faith on. b. trans. To provide with a creed or standard of faith. c. To utter upon one's word of honour. d. To give credit to, believe, trust.

The word has a large number of tangential meanings, note however 1. a. and b. and 3. The religious sense is what provides the absolutist connotation, but the basic meaning is trust:

Trust, n

[Early ME. trost(e, truste, ad. ON. traust n. neut.: see TRUST (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/crossref?query_type=word&queryword=trust&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&search_id=wPNT-txwH4B-14347&result_place=2&xrefword=trust&ps=a.) a.]
1. a. Confidence in or reliance on some quality or attribute of a person or thing, or the truth of a statement. Const. in (http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mb/dag.gifof, on, upon, to, unto).

Trust, v

b. take on or upon trust (http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mbbi/dag.gifreceive, take up in trust, take up upon trust), to accept or give credit to without investigation or evidence.

c. transf. with possessive: That in which one's confidence is put; an object of trust.

2. Confident expectation of something; hope.

[Early ME. ad. ON. treysta, assimilated in ME. to TRUST (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/crossref?query_type=word&queryword=trust&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&search_id=wPNT-txwH4B-14347&result_place=4&xrefword=trust), trost, a. and n. Cf. Sw. tröst comfort, trösta to comfort, console, Norw. troøste sig til to confide in; OS. trôstan, MLG. trôsten, Du. troosten, OHG. trôsten, Ger. trösten (with the sense to comfort (cf. L. fortis strong), cheer, encourage): see TRUST (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/crossref?query_type=word&queryword=trust&first=1&max_to_show=10&sort_type=alpha&search_id=wPNT-txwH4B-14347&result_place=4&xrefword=trust&ps=a.) a.]
1. a. intr. To have faith or confidence; to place reliance; to confide. Const. in, to (http://dictionary.oed.com/graphics/parser/gifs/mb/dag.gifof, on, upon).

I find it difficult to see a requirement for absolutism, though it might be desirable. If Faith were absolute then where would the phrase "Oh ye of little faith" come from?

It seems to me that faith, like trust, confidence etc. can be variable.

Strike For The South

04-02-2009, 01:03

Faith supersedes reason. People put faith in there reasoning. They are on two different planes. Wether you put your faith in God or science, your reasons for doing so are essentially the same.

I agree that no one can ever be truly and utterly reasonable. People hold to many prejudices and notions.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

04-02-2009, 02:01

OK, in the absence of ATPG, and as he asked for someone else to take up the baton I shall now attempt to reply to some of this monster which has spawned since last night. I will warn that I will not respond to all things that have been said, and will attempt to acknowledge where my definitions disagree with others, including ATPG. Just to clarify I am an atheist insofar as I believe that there is no God. That does not mean that I 'know' this.

Then we can agree that you can have an Atheistic Faith? Or more accurately an atheistic fanaticism?

I would concede this point. People who claim to 'know' there is no God would fit into this category, as it is an impossibility to prove the non-existence of such a deity.

For starters Religions are philosophical systems, not theories. There are beliefs in Religions that relate to the Supernatural, the totality is far more complex. Further, this makes Atheism a religion because it is atheory of the Supernatural, or lack thereof.

I concede this point, but would go further. Religions would appear to me to be philosophical systems designed to explain the world's existence among other things. As such they tend to extrapolate to explain the unexplainable, this is how ideas of deities come into conciousness. This is kind of irrelevant though.

Unless you can demonstrate this it can only be a matter of belief, held on Faith. Faith comes from the Latin fidelis which comes from fido which is "trust".

I'll accept this definition.

Insanity is a detachment from reality. If you know you are ignoring evidence you remian sane.

Reasoning is subjective, there is no such thing as being "unreasonable" unless you actually abandon reasoning. That means you stop thinging entirely. Regardless, all choices are made using reason, even flipping a coin to make the choice is an exercise in using reason. You reason to abandon the choice to chance because you don't want to make it.

You have ceased to be reasonable, you cannot claim a self-evident point without recourse to Faith.

Reasonable can mean different things in different contexts, it could mean tolerant for example. In terms of abandoning all reasoning, that would make you insane, as you would be detached from reality. If I remember correctly in the 17th century Hume argued that the technique of induction, on which most reasoning is based, is impossible to prove correct. The only arguement that I could find to refute him was a pragmatic argument which claimed that it is the only method of reasoning we have, and it even if it wasn't proven, it worked.

So yes I agree that reasoning is subjective.

In any case, I am trying to engage with you honestly, whether or not you choose to believe that or not depends on the level of faith you have in my integrity (it would seem you have very little faith in it.)

If you don't want to continue fine, I maintain that there are logical inconsistancies in your use of words and this damages your arguement. In particular I think your use of the word "belief" to define a set of propositions, and then using the same word again to designate one of those propositions, causes confusion. How am I to know wether you are refering to a belief or Belief as you define it?

However, if this upsets you so I shall change my definitions.

I replace the word Faith with its original synonym, "Trust", in my definitions.

So, now I say that you trust reason to be a sufficient guide to reality, and that is the same irrational basis as trust in God.

I also trust Reason, but I trust God as well. That is the last statement I will make of my beliefs here. I have not attempted to impinge your character, divert the debate or paint you an atheist. Further, I retract my self-identification as "a man of Faith" because I have no "Faith" as you define it.

Do not be so quick to take offence, especially when you have repeatedly slandered Christianity and called your primary interlocutor unreasonable and infered his insanity.

Now an actual attempt to get back to the original point, without (hopefully) slandering religion. Let us assume that religion takes the form of a map book, guiding you through life. You are travelling through an area unfamiliar to you, and come to a bridge crossing a river. The book tells you that the bridge is maintained regularly, and is perfectly safe, and besides there is no other way across the river. Trusting in the book you would attempt to cross the river. This is my analogy for faith.

Now imagine a similar scenario and as you go to cross the bridge someone tells you that it is unsafe. Now there is an element of risk involved, and continued adherence to your trust in the book could endanger you. However as you have no reason to believe the fellow and the bridge looks sturdy you might proceed. I would not argue with this.

If on the other hand the bridge looks as if a strong breeze would topple it, and several locals had sworn on their mother's lives that it would collapse as soon as you looked at it, then continued trust in the guidebook of life would certainly be very dangerous to your health. This would be how I classifiy blind faith.

So arguing a slightly different line to ATPG, I would suggest that trust in a religious system is fine, if it is tempered with a tempered frame of mind, and that faith is not inherently bad.

Sorry if this steers the debate elsewhere from where it should be. Bearing in mind that the formal debate is not over I feel I should apologise to ATPG, but I cannot argue convincingly for something that I don't believe.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-02-2009, 02:29

I hope you don't mind, I'm not quoting the points you concede without qualification, if there is qualification I have missed I will accept censure for that.

I concede this point, but would go further. Religions would appear to me to be philosophical systems designed to explain the world's existence among other things. As such they tend to extrapolate to explain the unexplainable, this is how ideas of deities come into conciousness. This is kind of irrelevant though.

Nice elaboration, we might go further and note that a lot of cultures eventually boil their religion down to a sort of monotheistic paternalism, something we can see in the East and in later Greek Mysticism. Whether this is evidence for an actual God, or evidence for common psychology is a matter of perspective, though.

Reasonable can mean different things in different contexts, it could mean tolerant for example. In terms of abandoning all reasoning, that would make you insane, as you would be detached from reality. If I remember correctly in the 17th century Hume argued that the technique of induction, on which most reasoning is based, is impossible to prove correct. The only arguement that I could find to refute him was a pragmatic argument which claimed that it is the only method of reasoning we have, and it even if it wasn't proven, it worked.

So yes I agree that reasoning is subjective.

Just to note, I agree with the pragmatic refutation. Reason does work, it's just we don't have anything to measure the inherrent reasonableness of Reason. Interestingly, the early Theologians appealed to a reasonable God.

That's an interesting point, because it assumes Man and Divine agree on what is reasonable.

Now an actual attempt to get back to the original point, without (hopefully) slandering religion. Let us assume that religion takes the form of a map book, guiding you through life. You are travelling through an area unfamiliar to you, and come to a bridge crossing a river. The book tells you that the bridge is maintained regularly, and is perfectly safe, and besides there is no other way across the river. Trusting in the book you would attempt to cross the river. This is my analogy for faith.

Now imagine a similar scenario and as you go to cross the bridge someone tells you that it is unsafe. Now there is an element of risk involved, and continued adherence to your trust in the book could endanger you. However as you have no reason to believe the fellow and the bridge looks sturdy you might proceed. I would not argue with this.

If on the other hand the bridge looks as if a strong breeze would topple it, and several locals had sworn on their mother's lives that it would collapse as soon as you looked at it, then continued trust in the guidebook of life would certainly be very dangerous to your health. This would be how I classifiy blind faith.

So arguing a slightly different line to ATPG, I would suggest that trust in a religious system is fine, if it is tempered with a tempered frame of mind, and that faith is not inherently bad.

Sorry if this steers the debate elsewhere from where it should be. Bearing in mind that the formal debate is not over I feel I should apologise to ATPG, but I cannot argue convincingly for something that I don't believe.

I personally think this is very reasonable, on the weight of evidence I'll buy into evolution because the alternative requires complex theological gymnastics. Unfortunately, this doesn't help as with Big Questions like, "Does God exist?" because we don't have any kind of concrete evidence to work with really.

I can posit that there is a Creator, because the world is created but that's just a postulation and it's not really something to put a great deal of Faith in by itself.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

04-02-2009, 03:14

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-02-2009, 03:37

I'll point out here that I personally agree with the refutation of Hume as well. I just wanted to note that all Reason is based on a faith in induction. I'd suggest that the reasons for Man and God agreeing on reasonableness comes down to the human psyche. Why would Man believe in a God that is unreasonable by his own standards. While extrapolating a figure to explain everything, humanity still needs to keep things reasoned and sensible. This would make for an interesting discussion (not a debate) in itself, but is sadly OT.

We are in agreement then, a discussion of the merits of Reason etc. would be nice at some point in the future, certainly.

Positing a creator figure in light of a cosmological argument based on some reasonable assumptions makes sense, even if the argument has been attacked, because it is reasoned. I'd assume that most religious people do not base their faith in a single argument but in an amalgamation of many. As PVC says above suggesting a creator figure and having faith in the existence of such a creator are two very different things. Faith is born of trust, whether in doctrine, in morality or in the mere idea of itself.

Quite, Faith is born of trust. In Christianity this trust is in the figure of God himsefl, the same for other many religions as well. In such systems the ideal believer has a personal (and usually loving) relationship with deity. This is Mysticism, however, and is completely outside the realms of this debate. It is important to note ther personal nature of the ideal relationship.

Trust in God is often compared to trust in a Spouse or Parent, taken to extremes this leads mystics to celibacy. There are documented cases of women experiencing a physical consumation with Christ, and there is a frankly erotic corpus of poetry written to the Virgin Mary my medieval monks.

Just to further my point above, (I had to rush off for a politics tutorial), faith in and of itself is not bad. Fanaticism however, is. Belief in the absolute truth of a doctrine, deity, or in the rightness of action is. This is what I refer to as blind faith, although if someone wants to come up with an alternative that would be fine.

I think Blind Faith is ignoring evidence, but there is also Absolute Faith, which aknowledges problems but searches for ways around them. I could use a theological example, but let me try a personal one.

My beloved hurts me, very badly; on the face of it she is being cruel and careless of my feelings. I could take this as evidence of her no longer loving me, I could ignore it and blame myself, or I could maintain my faith in her character but assume there is an as-yet unknown reason for her actions.

So I acknowldge the problem, but my Faith is strong enough that I will exhaust every possible avenue before accepting she is deliberately hurting me. If my Faith were unbreakable, it would be Absolute, but not necessarily blind.

So blind faith is dangerous because it disregards evidence. This can also make it brittle though, because there is only so much a human mind can disregard before becoming unhinged or breaking down.

Blind faith is then the belief that you are furthering the goals of your (God/religion/doctrine/yourself/etc.) in your every action. That anything that disagrees with this belief is wrong, and that any reasonable or unreasonable questioning of your belief is completely wrong and has no basis in fact or fiction. Fanaticism can be born of religious faith, but it is not a pre-requisite, as the Third Reich and Soviet Russia can prove in the last hundred years. They do however, have their grounding in a faith in something, a leader, a philosophy or an idea.

Extrapolating from my suggestion above, and assuming that you accept my assertion that religious faith is trust in such a philosophy, would you respond to an allegation that while trust in a religious philosophy is not inherently bad, it does carry the seeds of such a destructive and blind ideology?

I would say that a blind adherence to any belief, i.e. Blind Faith in said belief, is extremely dangerous. Not only does it disregard the modification or rejection of the belief, it assumes that you are capable of correctly interpreting the belief, in this case a theoretical system, and then applying it consistantly and perfectly 100% of the time.

If that were true you would have a completely objective thought process.

Seamus Fermanagh

04-02-2009, 05:48

Some of the last 20 posts or so are starting to evince a bit of meanness. Please, all of you, keep this as clean and polite as it started. Thank you.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

04-02-2009, 06:22

I'll be back tomorrow or Friday hopefully with a more complete view. I'm at uni atm, and then I have work and tomorrow I'm at work all day, and for the moment I've no internet access at home. But I'll attempt to compose a fuller and definitive argument of my point of view on this topic (not sure how it will turn out yet).

I'll also respond to some more of the above posts...

Rhyfelwyr

04-02-2009, 14:30

I think Blind Faith is ignoring evidence, but there is also Absolute Faith, which aknowledges problems but searches for ways around them. I could use a theological example, but let me try a personal one.

My beloved hurts me, very badly; on the face of it she is being cruel and careless of my feelings. I could take this as evidence of her no longer loving me, I could ignore it and blame myself, or I could maintain my faith in her character but assume there is an as-yet unknown reason for her actions.

So I acknowldge the problem, but my Faith is strong enough that I will exhaust every possible avenue before accepting she is deliberately hurting me. If my Faith were unbreakable, it would be Absolute, but not necessarily blind.

So blind faith is dangerous because it disregards evidence. This can also make it brittle though, because there is only so much a human mind can disregard before becoming unhinged or breaking down.

Can I just point out, that by these definitions, I would say that I have absolute faith. PVC has more or less summed up for me what I should have made clear much earlier. My faith is absolute, but it does not blind me.

Fixiwee

04-02-2009, 15:42

My faith is absolute, but it does not blind me.
Again with all due respect. But I find that hard to belive. It is so easy to be self-rightous and convinced by your own belives.
That's why it is so hard to step out of his own shadow.
Is it wrong to doubt things? Question them to a certain point where one says: "I don't know?"

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-02-2009, 16:02

Can I just point out, that by these definitions, I would say that I have absolute faith. PVC has more or less summed up for me what I should have made clear much earlier. My faith is absolute, but it does not blind me.

Great! Now Rhy and I are on the same page about something!

:end:

Incongruous

04-02-2009, 23:01

Again with all due respect. But I find that hard to belive. It is so easy to be self-rightous and convinced by your own belives.
That's why it is so hard to step out of his own shadow.
Is it wrong to doubt things? Question them to a certain point where one says: "I don't know?"

What evidence of Rhyfelwyr's character are you using in otder to make such a statement, that is, to accuse of being big-headed in a rather round about way? "I don't know, is a fundamental block of faith, it is something more akin to the faithfull's submission to God than the atheist's claims of "there is no god". Without the stern word of God with which to cinstruct your morals around, you are subject to the constant winds of human "advancement" and fashion, to the hubris of men whom think they know it all. To me, a re-converted Christian, the atheist embodies the greatest sense of self-righteousness possible.

Fixiwee

04-02-2009, 23:35

What evidence of Rhyfelwyr's character are you using in otder to make such a statement, that is, to accuse of being big-headed in a rather round about way?
The "evidence" as you call it is in his statement. He said his faith is absolute, I ask the question if it is possible to question the absolutness of faith.

"I don't know, is a fundamental block of faith, it is something more akin to the faithfull's submission to God than the atheist's claims of "there is no god".
For the record, I'm not an atheist.

Without the stern word of God with which to cinstruct your morals around
Well there is no stern word of God. There is only stuff some people wrote down back when there was no TV or Internet.

you are subject to the constant winds of human "advancement"
Where did I say that?

to the hubris of men whom think they know it all.
Uhm. What? I'm the one who says "I don't know".

To me, a re-converted Christian, the atheist embodies the greatest sense of self-righteousness possible.
Now take an atheist and he will say: the theist embodies the greatest sense of self-righteousness possible.

You're claiming absolutness in a discussion where you can't.

Incongruous

04-03-2009, 00:42

The "evidence" as you call it is in his statement. He said his faith is absolute, I ask the question if it is possible to question the absolutness of faith.

For the record, I'm not an atheist.

Well there is no stern word of God. There is only stuff some people wrote down back when there was no TV or Internet.

Where did I say that?

Uhm. What? I'm the one who says "I don't know".

Now take an atheist and he will say: the theist embodies the greatest sense of self-righteousness possible.

You're claiming absolutness in a discussion where you can't.

So in effect, you have no evidence upon hwich to base that accusation? You simply have him declaring his faith to be absolute, he has denied himself the idea of superiority, only God may claim that. I believe that he probabaly has asked himself about his faith, I doubt he is unthinking drone, to be faithful requires the opposite type of mind. If you are not an atheist, then perhaps agnostic? In order to hold faith, one cannot be half-way, that is just hedging bets. "There is only stuff some people wrote down back when there was no tiv or internet", excellent specimen of the modern view of the Gospels, that they are false projections of Christ's word. Modern Christiology would disagree with you, the Gospels are so anti-establishment that it is inconcievable the Church would have created them, it is also unlikeley that Mark pulled it out of thin air.
"Where did I say that?", you didn't, I did, I was commenting upon the morality of atheists.
"I'm the one who says I don't know", good, then we agree upon that, except I beleive God does, do you?

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 01:00

I believe that my productive contribution to the Rhyfelwyr discussion is all but over. I'm a little tired, but I'll attempt to do a summary/closing argument.

1. The major sticking point for me, about the dangerousness of faith, is that men cannot know with absolute certainty anything about the supernatural world or if there even is one. Further, when someone accepts something "on faith" that is another term for "taking your word for it", which is fine, as long as someone understands that they do not know; that is WHY they have to accept someone's word for it, because they have no proof and cannot know. However, many faithful, and I make a distinction between "faithful" and "believers" as I've defined the terms, state that they know that which they cannot know. They use the word know improperly, they apply it to strong belief as well as actual factual information, as much as any bit of information can be considered fact. When faithful "KNOW" that non-faithful will burn in hell, they are wrong that they know, and they are holding a major prejudice, and in modern society, such prejudices are unwelcome and backward. These blanket judgments of people they do not even know imply absolute judgment, which they know they cannot have, because they are human beings who are flawed. Judging someone you do not know who has a different belief from yourself as being wholly without morality, or having corrupt wicked morality, or having no redeeming virtues without your belief system, is a form of ignorance, in my opinion. It's also hateful, wrathful, and spiteful, in my opinion. These terms are far less harsh than the terms used for non-believers... indeed, it is a charitable assessment of those who condemn you to hell based on prejudice and "knowledge" which is not even knowledge, but belief in spite of reason or evidence. I have no use for such prejudice, and I consider the condescending, divisive, judgmental attitude to be directly contrary to the values espoused by the major religions those faithful claim to adhere to. In short, it is an act of ignorance, hypocrisy, and it creates sectarian divisions in our society which will never heal until such prejudice disappears, in my opinion. Believing that you know, when you cannot know, is irrational and borders on what we would define as form of insanity. If you define insanity, what is the definition? I believe you will find it meets the criteria of believing you know something with absolute certainty which you cannot know with any degree of certainty. I don't know how else to define insanity, to be honest.

Absolute faith in something, and by that I mean belief that you KNOW for sure that which you cannot know, meets the common definitions of insanity, or ignorance, or prejudice. As a cognitive system, faith is self-destructive and dangerous, because intentional ignorance, irrationalism, and prejudice do not result in anything positive. There are no examples where ignorance, irrationalism, or prejudice alone create positive results for society; if positive results happen, they are coincidences or random occurrences. They are not a result of faith. I have laid out a fairly conclusive case as to why that is, but I realize I cannot convince everyone. That is not my goal; people can believe what they want. But when the faithful call those without faith to be less than they are, as a faithless man I have responded that such behavior is ignorant, hateful, irrational, and one of the last major prejudices, and I feel there is no place for it in our society.

Religion and morality can exist without such condemnation of others, my friends. Although as a faithless man I have been judged as worthless and void of morality, and hell-bound, by otherwise normal, kind people, I do not reply in kind that they are worthless and void of morality, or doomed to die a natural death and never experience heaven. I am entitled and obliged to criticize their behavior as being unhealthy to themselves, and bad for society. I am judging faith as being flawed, and all people as being flawed, but I do not condemn the faithful as being absolutely void of redeeming virtue, and I do not call them disgusting sinners. That is the difference between absolutism and rationalism; one is an extremist position, the other is moderate. Extremists are bad for society, and moderates allow society to function properly.

2. Faith is something which differs from hope or belief. When someone has absolute faith, hope is impossible, because hope exists when there is uncertainty about the outcome of something is unknown. When someone purports to know something beyond all doubt, there is no room for hope. There is nothing to hope for, because you're certain. And again, this certainty is false certainty... no one can be absolutely certain of things which are impossible to know.

3. Belief is different from faith. I believe there could be a God, or that there might not be a God; I do not know. I believe that gravity exists as a natural force, one that can be almost fully understood someday, and made into a predictable phenomenon. However, there is hope mixed with uncertainty in order to have such belief; there is no certainty in hope or belief. That is why it is hope; that is why it is belief. One can believe in the afterlife and be uncertain. One can believe there is none, and be uncertain. Belief is opinion, and opinions are open to being challenged and altered according to new data. Beliefs are not set in stone; beliefs are simply strong opinions, and that is sane and rational, in my opinion.

4. When one claims that ignoring their rational mind is a rational act, I can prove that is false by definition, and that conclusion is self-evidently true. Imagine for example that the rational mind is wrong about something, but it is still listening to evidence, dissenting opinion, and keeping an open mind; that is still rational, even if it is wrong. Now imagine for example that the otherwise rational mind has chosen to ignore everything, stop listening to evidence, dissenting opinion, or reason, and is keeping a closed mind; that is still irrational, whether or not that person happened to guess correctly their solution. Rational does not always mean right, and irrational does not always mean wrong. But more productive and useful knowledge has come from rationalism, by a measure unfathomable. Ignoring reason and evidence has produced nothing that we consider to be useful knowledge. If the belief happened to be right, it was still arrived at by irrational means; and irrational by definition is not rational. No amount of belief can overturn definition. Zero does not equal one, not in this universe. If it so happened that zero equals one in a different universe, then in order to win this argument, the believer would have to be in an alternate universe with different laws. If someone has to be in a different, parallel reality to be correct, then they aren't correct in this reality, and they have lost their argument. Time to throw in the towel, folks. It is an act of stubbornness to believe that something void of rationalism is a form of rationalism. It is not, by definition. You may wish to believe that you are still correct when your definitions of words do not match the official definition, but that is nothing more than wishful thinking, and self-contradictory definitions have no place in a reasoned debate.

There are some things in this world which are self-evidently true. When the definition of an apple specifically means an apple, it does not also mean no apple. It must be one or the other, or there is no use in defining anything. That is probably why I got so frustrated earlier; you cannot take the word irrational, which has a definition which can be easily found anywhere, and call it rational, and say they are equal to one another. You have no logical foundation to do so, and are therefore wrong by the definition of being wrong. No amount of belief can overturn something which is objectively true. That's not my opinion; it's the way of reality as we know it, and reality does not bend to mere opinion.

5. When the mind is in a position where it must redefine the language we have agreed upon to such a degree that words mean the opposite of what they actually mean, then the mind is being stubborn. This is a symptom of unrelenting faith; a symptom of the disease of irrational, unwavering belief that you know, when you do not know. It perverts our understanding of language, and it perverts our thoughts, because we think in language. It then perverts our judgment, because now our thoughts are inverted from where they should be. When our judgment becomes perverted, we make horrible, horrible mistakes. That results in an increase in the danger to ourselves and others in this world, and it can all be traced back to the irrational, extremist position that one can know without really knowing, and one can know something even when it is proven self-evidently false, or when there is no evidence supporting it.

Faith, absolutist faith, is a perversion of the rational mind, and it is dangerous to thy self and thy neighbor. Faith destroys hope and replaces it with false certainty. Faith destroys reason and replaces it with reasonless falsehoods and unfounded opinions. Faith destroys definition and replaces it with words that are meaningless because they are self-contradictory. Faith is the lack of reason, not a parallel, equal rival to reason. The lack of reason does not equal reason. One can have faith, but they cannot be reasonable at the same time. They can do one or the other in their lives, or both, but not simultaneously. It is the difference between an open and a closed mind; a mind cannot be both open and closed about the same thing. That is why faith and reason are opposing forces and cannot coexist. Faith is by definition a closed mind which is set in stone, and reason is by definition an open mind which accepts new data and considers it. Otherwise, our entire debate is meaningless because you have redefined your terms to mean the exact opposite, rather than a minor clarification.

6. Religion and lack of religion can easily coexist as long as they are not absolutist. I accept that I could be wrong about the natural and the supernatural worlds, that is why I am a REASONABLE man who is non-religious. A REASONABLE man who is religious accepts that they do not have all the answers and cannot KNOW for certain what the status of the supernatural or natural world is. The similarity, in spite of their opposing worldviews? "I DO NOT KNOW".

7. Religion is not the only source of faith. Faith exists in politics, philosophy, and in other less formal forms. It exists anywhere that a man says "I KNOW FOR CERTAIN, and nothing will budge me on it."

Such a sentiment is dangerous, and creates rigid, inflexible people who are intolerant of other viewpoints. These people are fanatical extremists with an absolutist worldview, and they do not coexist with society, they attempt to re-create it in their own absolutist image.

"I know for certain" resulted in all the wars that have ever happened. When a man knows for certain that it is right to murder another human being, they become a soldier in an offensive conflict. All conflicts have at least one aggressor. Sometimes both sides aggress one another, but in all violent conflicts, there is an aggressor. That aggressor KNOWS they are right, and that it is right to murder.

All wars are a result of such unrelenting, flawed faith. All murder is a result of this brand of extremist certainty. Not all faithful take the path of violence; but they still do not tolerate the faithless and do not listen to them. They exist in a separate bubble, and they do not want to coexist with us. Faith is the evil plague which has divided mankind, and billions have died thanks to the extremism, militancy, and irrationalism of the belief that you KNOW for certain that which you cannot know.

If your beliefs are limited to merely the supernatural and the afterlife, they may not cause harm in this world. But still... some people have committed suicide to join this afterlife. There have been suicidal cults led by fanatical leaders, with devoted, faithful followers. Faith is inherently destructive to the mind, and when the mind is destroyed, the body will inevitably follow. Reason, open-mindedness, moderation, doubt, skepticism, debate, tolerance, and fairness, are the antithesis of faith, and oppose faith in all forms, not belief or religion.

Belief and religion have a place in our civilized world; faith does not. That is my rational conclusion; however, I do not believe in it so much I am willing to murder over it, and I still must tolerate the faithful and their intolerance. That is the difference, and that is why faith destroys morality; it does not create it. Rationalism and reasonableness, as well as many forms of belief, allow for morality, but absolute faith destroys it.

That is my argument, and it has not been refuted to my satisfaction here. I am willing to listen, but all the arguments presented thus far in favor of faith have attempted to redefine the term or skirt the issues at hand. I have seen nothing here which redeems faith itself. Belief, perhaps... religion, yes. But not faith.

Faith is vile, in my opinion.

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 01:19

I made a spelling or grammatical mistake somewhere in that post... I would be delighted if someone could point out the obvious one, somewhere in there. It's a bit much to read again and I am tired.

Thanks much!

:2thumbsup:

Fixiwee

04-03-2009, 02:03

So in effect, you have no evidence upon hwich to base that accusation?
Of course not. There is no evidence. If there was we wouldn't have a discussion here.

You simply have him declaring his faith to be absolute, he has denied himself the idea of superiority, only God may claim that.
You are presuming that there is one. And that I am questioning my good sir. Hence we cannot take this for granted a preori.

I believe that he probabaly has asked himself about his faith, I doubt he is unthinking drone, to be faithful requires the opposite type of mind.
You seem to know him quite well.

If you are not an atheist, then perhaps agnostic? In order to hold faith, one cannot be half-way, that is just hedging bets.
Maybe I don't need your faith?

"There is only stuff some people wrote down back when there was no tiv or internet", excellent specimen of the modern view of the Gospels, that they are false projections of Christ's word.
I'm not refering to Christs word. There are a bunch of other religions on this world and they are just as right about their belives as you are.

Modern Christiology would disagree with you, the Gospels are so anti-establishment that it is inconcievable the Church would have created them, it is also unlikeley that Mark pulled it out of thin air.
Words like unlikley are no prove. I want prove. You can't come up with evidence.
And that's logic because it is called "having faith" and not "having knowledge".
So it is possible in my view that the apostles added a lot to the story of Christ. And I mean a lot.
You don't know it and you cannot prove me other wise. Although you wont admit it.
And that's fine.
Because you have faith.
And I respect that.

"I'm the one who says I don't know", good, then we agree upon that, except I beleive God does, do you?
You belive God knows he exist?
Does he?
Can you prove it?

This is going in circles.

Fixiwee

04-03-2009, 02:34

An interessting discussion between religion and scepticism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLftHRcplcY

Incongruous

04-03-2009, 08:28

Of course not. There is no evidence. If there was we wouldn't have a discussion here.

You are presuming that there is one. And that I am questioning my good sir. Hence we cannot take this for granted a preori.

You seem to know him quite well.

Maybe I don't need your faith?

I'm not refering to Christs word. There are a bunch of other religions on this world and they are just as right about their belives as you are.

Words like unlikley are no prove. I want prove. You can't come up with evidence.
And that's logic because it is called "having faith" and not "having knowledge".
So it is possible in my view that the apostles added a lot to the story of Christ. And I mean a lot.
You don't know it and you cannot prove me other wise. Although you wont admit it.
And that's fine.
Because you have faith.
And I respect that.

You belive God knows he exist?
Does he?
Can you prove it?

This is going in circles.

I am perplexed, you claimed Rhyf was being self righteous based upon his comments about his absolute faith. I put my hand up because I felt it was an indirect way of insulting someone. That is what I was talking about firstly. Whether or not you agree with him (or I) on the matter of his absolute faith being in a real God is not the point, and does not indicate that he is full of himself in any way. "You seem to know him quite well", tbh anyone who has read the discussions between Rhyf and Wigferth (sorry Phil your new name is sooo long) would come to the same conclusion, he clearly thinks, quite alot.
"Maybe I don't need yourfaith?", you can relax I am not attempting to convert you, I was talking of faith in general, you claimed not to be atheist, so I guessed at agnostic the talked about the nature of faith. Faith cannot be anything but absolute, otherwise it is just hope and not true.
"I'm not refering to Christs word", well I as Christian, when talking about God's word or teachings, am most definatley talking about Christ and so defended his word according to the Gospels. I undertstand that other Religions also claim to hold the truths of God, I am not a fool.
If you wish to learn about Christiology you would have to consult a book written by someone with real knowledge on the subject.
"Does he ( know he exists)?" well I don't know how "he" would percieve "his" existence, "he" is God and therefore past human conception, does "he" exist, well Christ existed and he was God's son on Earth, so yes "he" does exist.

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 10:10

Vuk

04-03-2009, 10:26

Faith is vile, in my opinion.

Thank you ATPG. :bow:

Reading the post I have quoted from, and others ATPG, I must say that you have started to become (or at least acting) rather irrational and radical IMHO. You say that ALL murder and ALL war is the result of faith. You basically say that all wrong ever commited is a result of faith. I suppose it never entered your mind that not everyone who does wrong believes that it is their right too, and that many (and if I was to make a guess, I would say nearly all) know it is wrong and that they do not have a right to, but want to do it anyway (for the thrill maybe, or maybe just for the result).
Now you are basically defining faith as: Everything bad in the history of the world. I think maybe that you should step back and take a good look at what you have been posting. I'm sorry ATPG, but any merit I thought your previous arguments had (and indeed, I did think they had merit) has been completely blown away by what you have posted since.
And ATPG, unless you admit that you could be wrong about what you are saying about faith, and it is not necassarily true, then you yourself are guilty of faith by your definition. If you do admit that you could be wrong, then treating faith and persons of faith with such hostility is in violation of "innocent unless proven guilty".

I do not want to tear down your post point by point (as I am quite famous for :P) and tear each example apart, but I will simply say that I completely disagree with most of your assertions, and think that if you took a closer look at history you would see that much of your 'facts' are quite wrong.

:bow:

Incongruous

04-03-2009, 10:33

Some questions:

Can someone claim that their religion is the only source of morality, and have it not be interpreted in a way besides self-righteousness?

Righteousness is being virtuous and morally upstanding, self-righteousness is attempting to be virtuous and morally upstanding, but condemning others for not sharing your faith or meeting your standards. It's not an insult; it's something which must be considered as the possible reality of the situation. How else would you define self-righteousness?

And what is the proof of this statement presented as fact:

A man called Christ may have existed, but the other two, being God's son, and proof of God, do not conclusively follow from the first part, especially when no evidence has been presented.

I have not condemned anyone, I have never heard anyone in my religious community condemn anyone, except my parish priest back home in London who condemned those men in the Church, past and present, which had used the trust people hold in God for their own sadistic ends. He was recalled to Rome a week after, but he is still remembered as the epitome of a Christian. I understand that there are those "Christians" whom taunt their fellow humans with images of fire and damnation eternal, Telling the mother that she and her child will burn. such people are nothing more than tribalists, whom hold the Word of Jesus on the same par as a sports team's anthem, turning the olive branch into club with which to batter the "other". To me they are far worse than un-believers ( with whom I have no problem) because they pervert the word of Christ, and thus the image and reputation of the Church and God.

A man called Jesus, did most certainly exist, you will find no credible academic whom states otherwise (if you can I am interested). He was a man with the message of God's Kingdom on earth, therefore he was the Christ.

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 11:04

Thank you ATPG. :bow:

Reading the post I have quoted from, and others ATPG, I must say that you have started to become (or at least acting) rather irrational and radical IMHO.

I laid out a case where inflexible and intolerant thought, combined with certainty that you cannot be wrong, leads to destruction. Your rebuttal?

You say that ALL murder and ALL war is the result of faith.

I also, many many posts ago, offered greed as a possible alternative. Faith is responsible for the murders, and greed is responsible for the decision to fight.

You basically say that all wrong ever commited is a result of faith.

No, that's not true. Just the mass exterminations. It takes very firm convictions for human beings to commit such carnage upon one another. The rational, moderate mind would not do that.

When you say "You basically say" you're rewording my argument.

I suppose it never entered your mind that not everyone who does wrong believes that it is their right too, and that many (and if I was to make a guess, I would say nearly all) know it is wrong and that they do not have a right to, but want to do it anyway (for the thrill maybe, or maybe just for the result).

Actually, I offered greed as a possible motive as well. You could also throw insanity in there, I suppose... a serial murderer who knows it is wrong to murder but does it anyway because they don't care. But how many deaths are a result of serial killers, and how many are a result of warfare and mass murder? The number of deaths by psychotic insanity I think you would find pales in comparison to the number of deaths cased by faith-based insanities of holy warfare, militant communism or imperialism, and extremist philosophy.

If you want to call greed part of sanity, then greed is also responsible for many deaths. But it's not a contest; there is no dispute that faith-based violent conflicts are responsible for the deaths of billions.

Do you dispute this?

Now you are basically defining faith as: Everything bad in the history of the world.

No, I am defining faith as belief that you know when you cannot know.

Then you get people who believe that they are totally right in acting on their faith in violent ways, far more than you would get from non-faithful, rational people who see aggressive violence as destructive to mankind, regardless of differences in philosophy.

You can change what I said, but that makes it a strawman argument.

I think maybe that you should step back and take a good look at what you have been posting. I'm sorry ATPG, but any merit I thought your previous arguments had (and indeed, I did think they had merit) has been completely blown away by what you have posted since.

In your opinion. You have to explain how the things I said are invalid.

And ATPG, unless you admit that you could be wrong about what you are saying about faith, and it is not necassarily true, then you yourself are guilty of faith by your definition. If you do admit that you could be wrong, then treating faith and persons of faith with such hostility is in violation of "innocent unless proven guilty".

I could be wrong about what I believe. But I have very factual examples of the destructive nature of faith.

I proved "faith" guilty using my arguments and using my examples. Because you disagree with my "proofs" that does not make them less valid. You have to explain why I am wrong, or you are merely objecting to what I said, not disproving it.

I do not want to tear down your post point by point (as I am quite famous for :P) and tear each example apart, but I will simply say that I completely disagree with most of your assertions, and think that if you took a closer look at history you would see that much of your 'facts' are quite wrong.

So you disagree. That's not exactly a rebuttal, though.

I have taken a very close look at history, and the facts say otherwise.

:bow:

Incongruous

04-03-2009, 11:25

Indeed, the only high handed condemnation in this debate seems to be eminating from your corner of the ring.

The Crusades required nothing more than a politician in holy gowns with ambitions for his establishment. This seems very reasonable to me, he balanced his options, and came to the conclusion for Holy War by using his reason.

Richard Ist executed thousands of Muslim prisoners because he reasoned that to keep them alive would weaken his precarious position in the Holy Land.

The French Revolutionaries reasoned that the only way to keep their freedom a reality, was to execute their fellows, and commit atrocious crimes against other nations.

You are quite right about humans having the gift of reason, though to praise it as some kind of moral compass is foolish "enlightenmentism", if I may.

Vuk

04-03-2009, 12:20

I laid out a case where inflexible and intolerant thought, combined with certainty that you cannot be wrong, leads to destruction. Your rebuttal?

That is not faith, that is arrogance. You and I already reach a conclusion on what faith is after a lengthy debate, and we agreed that it is not what you have said above.

I also, many many posts ago, offered greed as a possible alternative. Faith is responsible for the murders, and greed is responsible for the decision to fight.

You directly said in the post I quoted though that ALL murders and ALL wars were the result of faith. As a historian who has studied human conflicts for years I would say that it is ambition. As a man of faith, I would trust the Bible that money is the root of all evil. And my study of that passage in Isaiah has led me to believe that by money, he means personal ambition and greed, not physical money itsself.

No, that's not true. Just the mass exterminations. It takes very firm convictions for human beings to commit such carnage upon one another. The rational, moderate mind would not do that.

When you say "You basically say" you're rewording my argument.

I do not think I was rewording your argument there ATPG, because you said that rational thought prevents conflicts, and faith perverts language and the rational mind, and is what leads us to conflict. If everyone was rational by your argument there would be no conflicts, and the only wrongs would be that which nature inflicts on us. The perversion of rational thought, faith, causes arrogance and conflict. Does it not stand to reason then that faith IS indeed responsible for all the bad in the world by your definition?

Actually, I offered greed as a possible motive as well. You could also throw insanity in there, I suppose... a serial murderer who knows it is wrong to murder but does it anyway because they don't care. But how many deaths are a result of serial killers, and how many are a result of warfare and mass murder? The number of deaths by psychotic insanity I think you would find pales in comparison to the number of deaths cased by faith-based insanities of holy warfare, militant communism or imperialism, and extremist philosophy.
If you want to call greed part of sanity, then greed is also responsible for many deaths. But it's not a contest; there is no dispute that faith-based violent conflicts are responsible for the deaths of billions.

Do you dispute this?

I think you are trying to shape history to fit your opinion. If you look at most of the wars and conflicts throughout history, they were caused by ambitious people who wanted to personally gain or get revenge. (this includes the Crusades, the Muslim conquests, the inquisition, the Jewish massacres of Romans, the Roman massacres of Jews, the Jewish massacres of Christians, the Roman massacres of Christians, all secular wars, etc) They may have used religion or different rhetoric to justify their actions, but they are the ones responisble for them, and they did them for their own gain. *If you are a Catholic or Muslim who does not like the darker sides of your faith being discussed, either get on with it and make a rebuttal or do not read this, your choice entirely* The inquisition was simply a way for the pope to maintain his strangle-hold on Christian Europe. Many times throughout history the Catholic Church has flown in the face of the Bible to increase their own power, delibrately twisted the words of scripture, etc. They did not believe themselves, they did not do it because of faith. They did it because of personal ambition. They murdered millions because of personaly ambition. Look at all the attrocities warring muslims have committed. (even some that were not sanctioned by the koran) Sure, lots of them believed in their faith, but the problem was not faith, it was ambition. They held the muslim faith for their own personal gain - so they could fill their harem, their coffers, gain lands, and become powerfull. Look at the muslims who did not do this. There were quite a few muslims who devoted themselves to charity and helping people (choosing to focus on that part of Muhammeds teachings instead of the darker-side). You can congratulate them for the faith as easily as you can condemn the warlords for their faith. Likewise there were many millions of Catholics throughout history who devoted themselves to helping mankind through their faith. They both had faith, what is the difference? It is the ambition...the nature of the man itself. Do you think that Stalin really believed his own rhetoric? He did what he did for personal gain. People just use faith as a tool to justify their actions, but faith can also be a tool for extreme good, and is no more dangerous than anything else. You seem to put great faith in rational thought. I highly doubt you believe that you could possibly be wrong that rational thought is superior. You yourself have faith, only yours is in the glory of the humanmind instead of the glory of God. You are very condescending to everyone who disagrees with you. That is not the mark of an open-minded rational thinker. That is the mark of a man very set in his beliefs who thinks very lowly of those who disagree with them. What was your first remark when I entered this debate (politely and rationally)? It was to tell me that I did not know what I was talking about (ie, I am stupid) and I am not qualified to debate you (because you have almighty rational thought on your side and I am a stupid blind pawn of faith).

No, I am defining faith as belief that you know when you cannot know.

That is what you said to me, yet in the post I quoted you said in many words that it was a perversion of everything good and rational and responsible for the horrors of the world. There is a stark difference between the definition you gave me and the way you described faith in your above post.

Then you get people who believe that they are totally right in acting on their faith in violent ways, far more than you would get from non-faithful, rational people who see aggressive violence as destructive to mankind, regardless of differences in philosophy.

Really? Funny, I think history has shown that 'rational thinkers' very often use agressive violence to further their own ends in very well thought out and self-fufilling ways. What do you think motivated Hitler? Faith in his BS rhetoric, or personal ambition? His rhetoric was all lies, and he knew it.

You can change what I said, but that makes it a strawman argument.

In your opinion. You have to explain how the things I said are invalid.

On the contrary, I think you have to give a satisfactory reason why they are valid. Until you do, how can I dispute it? Faith has factored into some of mankind's wrongs, there is no argument there and that is all your sources prove. Faith has also been responsible to much good in the world. What I disagree with is your assertion that because faith played a part in some of mankind's wrongs, it is suddenly a perverter of good and responsible for ALL the murders and ALL the wars in the history of mankind (even though history shows us that ambition is the main motivator in most cases). You have given us any proof or evidence to support such an assertion, so how can we argue it?

I could be wrong about what I believe. But I have very factual examples of the destructive nature of faith.
You have very factual examples of the destructive nature of mankind. Sure, some of them (though definately not all) had faith, so what? Some of them were black? Should we blame blacks? Some of them had one eye, should we blame all one eyed people? My point is that you have proof that some people involved in murders and wars had faith, but you have not proved that that is the cause of the wars and murders. (and I don't think you will be able to either, but I will read your argument with an open mind)

I proved "faith" guilty using my arguments and using my examples. Because you disagree with my "proofs" that does not make them less valid. You have to explain why I am wrong, or you are merely objecting to what I said, not disproving it.

So you do not have evidence that supports your opinion/belief that faith is destructive, you have proven it now? If it is proven in your mind (and no longer a belief), then that means that you must know you are right about it (otherwise it would only be a belief, and not a proven fact). That negates your above statement completely.

So you disagree. That's not exactly a rebuttal, though.

I have taken a very close look at history, and the facts say otherwise.

Your evidence only supports the undisputed fact that faith has been involved in wrong, not your assertion as to the destructive nature of faith.

:bow:

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 12:21

WARS AND GENOCIDES OF THE 20TH CENTURY

Source: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

(I am uncertain as to the bias and facts presented by the source, but I don't think people dispute these conflicts existed, so I'm just using them as a reference, not stating the numbers of the dead are without dispute.)

Many of the conflicts from just the 20th century alone were motivated by political or religious forms fo absolutist faith and belief, and the rest seems to be the struggle against imperialism, and also aggressive imperialist greed.

1900-01: Boxer rebels against Russia, Britain, France, Japan, USA against rebels (35,000)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion

The Boxer Rebellion, also known as the Boxer Uprising, or the Righteous Harmony Society Movement (義和團運動) in Chinese, was a violent anti-foreign, anti-Christian movement by the "Righteous Fists of Harmony,” Yihe tuan义和团 [1] or Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists in China (known as "Boxers" in English), between 1898 and 1901. In response to imperialist expansion, growth of cosmopolitan influences, and missionary evangelism, and against the backdrop of state fiscal crisis and natural disasters, local organizations began to emerge in Shandong in 1898.

anti-Christian movement based on "righteousness" in response to imperialism and evangelism.

1903: Ottomans vs Macedonian rebels (20,000)
1904: Germany vs Namibia (65,000)

1904-05: Japan vs Russia (150,000)

The Russo-Japanese War (Japanese: 日露戦争; Romaji: Nichi-Ro Sensō; Russian: Русско-японская война Russko-Yaponskaya Voyna; simplified Chinese: 日俄战争; traditional Chinese: 日俄戰爭; pinyin: Rìézhànzhēng, 10 February 1904 – 5 September 1905) or the Manchurian Campaign in some English sources, was a conflict that grew out of the rival imperialist ambitions of the Russian Empire and the Empire of Japan over Manchuria and Korea. The major theatres of operations were Southern Manchuria, specifically the area around the Liaodong Peninsula and Mukden, and the seas around Korea, Japan, and the Yellow Sea.

Rival imperialist intentions against Manchuria and Korea. This major conflict was based upon imperialism, a form of greed mixed with the belief that one's culture is superior to others. But I'll concede that is mostly greed.

1910-20: Mexican revolution (250,000)

The Mexican Revolution (Spanish: Revolución Mexicana) was a major armed struggle that started in 1910 with an uprising led by Francisco I. Madero against longtime autocrat Porfirio Díaz. The first of the major revolutions of the 20th century[citation needed], the Mexican Revolution was characterized by several socialist, liberal, anarchist, populist, and agrarianist movements.

It progressed into a war and multi-sided civil war. It produced the Mexican Constitution of 1917. The Revolution is generally considered to have lasted until 1920, although the country continued to have sporadic but comparatively minor outbreaks of rebellion in the 1920s, with the major exception of the Cristero War. The Revolution triggered the creation of the National Revolutionary Party in 1929 (renamed the Institutional Revolutionary Party or PRI in 1946). Putting forward a variety of leaders, the PRI held power and led the country until the general election of 2000.

Political movements, motivated by faith in a political, rather than religious ideology, resulted in the deaths of 250,000 or so people. This was a conflict between political ideologies, and when one believes in their political ideology so much they are willing to murder over it, I would call that an expression of unrelenting faith in that viewpoint. As I've defined it, faith is not religion, it is separate from it.

1911: Chinese Revolution (2.4 million)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhai_Revolution

The Xinhai Revolution or Hsinhai Revolution (Chinese: 辛亥革命; pinyin: Xīnhài Gémìng), also known as the 1911 Revolution or the Chinese Revolution, began with the Wuchang Uprising on October 10, 1911 and ended with the abdication of Emperor Puyi on February 12, 1912. The primary parties to the conflict were the Imperial forces of the Qing Dynasty (1644–1911), and the revolutionary forces of the Chinese Revolutionary Alliance (Tongmenghui). The revolution is so named because 1911 is a Xinhai Year in the sexagenary cycle of the Chinese calendar. The Xinhai Revolution was motivated by anger to corruption by the Qing government, by frustration with the government's inability to restrain the interventions of foreign powers, and by majority Han Chinese resentment toward a government dominated by an ethnic minority (the Manchus).

More revolutions against imperialism.

1911-12: Italian-Ottoman war (20,000)
1912-13: Balkan wars (150,000)
1915: the Ottoman empire slaughters Armenians (1.2 million)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide

The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı), also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, by Armenians, as the Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն; Armenian pronunciation: [Mɛtsʼ jɛʁɛrn]), refers to the deliberate and systematic destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I.[1] It was characterised by the use of massacres, and the use of deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees, with the total number of Armenian deaths generally held to have been between one and one-and-a-half million.[2] Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Empire during this period, including Assyrians and Greeks, and some scholars consider the events to be part of the same policy of extermination.[3]

It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern genocides,[4][5][6] as many Western sources point to the systematic, organized manner the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians.[7]

In the Ottoman Empire, in accordance with the Muslim dhimmi system, Armenians, as Christians, were guaranteed limited freedoms (such as the right to worship), but were treated as second-class citizens. Christians and Jews were not considered equals to Muslims: testimony against Muslims by Christians and Jews was inadmissible in courts of law. They were forbidden to carry weapons or ride atop horses, their houses could not overlook those of Muslims, and their religious practices would have to defer to those of Muslims, in addition to various other legal limitations.[14] Violation of these statutes could result in punishments ranging from the levying of fines to execution.

The three major European powers, Great Britain, France and Russia (known as the Great Powers), took issue with the Empire's treatment of its Christian minorities and increasingly pressured the Ottoman government (also known as the Sublime Porte) to extend equal rights to all its citizens. Beginning in 1839, the Ottoman government implemented the Tanzimat reforms to improve the situation of minorities, although these would prove largely ineffective. By the late 1870s, Greece, along with several countries of the Balkans, frustrated with conditions, had, often with the help of the Powers, broken free of Ottoman rule. Armenians, for the most part, remained passive during these years, earning them the title of millet-i sadıka or the "loyal millet."[15]

This was a genocide based upon religious divisions and faith. A horrendous atrocity resulting from man's belief that he KNOWS the will of God.

1915-20: the Ottoman empire slaughters 500,000 Assyrians
1916-23: the Ottoman empire slaughters 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks

1914-18: World War I (20 million~)

World War I (WWI, WW1), also known as the, First World War , Great War and War to End All Wars, was a global military conflict which involved the majority of the world's great powers,[2] organized into two opposing military alliances: the Entente Powers and the Central Powers.[3] Over 70 million military personnel were mobilized in one of the largest wars in history.[4] In a state of total war, the major combatants placed their scientific and industrial capabilities at the service of the war effort. Over 15 million people were killed, making it one of the deadliest conflicts in human history.[5]

The proximate catalyst for the war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by a Bosnian-Serb nationalist, Gavrilo Princip. Austria-Hungary's resulting demands against the Kingdom of Serbia led to the activation of a series of alliances which within weeks saw all of the major European powers at war. Because of the global empires of many European nations, the war soon spread worldwide.

By the war's end, four major imperial powers - Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire - had been militarily and politically defeated, with the latter two ceasing to exist as autonomous countries.[6] The revolutionized Soviet Union emerged from the Russian Empire, while the map of central Europe was completely redrawn into numerous smaller states.[7] The League of Nations was formed in the hope of preventing another such conflict. The European nationalism spawned by the war, the repercussions of Germany's defeat, and the Treaty of Versailles would eventually lead to the beginning of World War II in 1939.[8]

A terrible war based upon rival imperialist states, greedy for power and territory, as well as ethic division. Not particularly religious-based. I chalk this one up to greed.

1916: Kyrgyz revolt against Russia (120,000)
1917-21: Soviet revolution (5 million)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_revolution

The October Revolution (Russian: Октябрьская революция, Oktyabr'skaya revolyuciya), also known as the Soviet Revolution or Bolshevik Revolution, refers to a revolution—as part of the Russian Revolution—that began with an armed insurrection in Petrograd (also regarded as a coup d'état by the worker and soldier masses) traditionally dated to 25 October 1917 Julian calendar (7 November 1917 Gregorian calendar).[1] It was the second phase of the overall Russian Revolution of 1917, after the February Revolution of the same year. The October Revolution overthrew the Russian Provisional Government and gave the power to the Soviets dominated by Bolsheviks. It was followed by the Russian Civil War (1917–1922) and the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922.

The revolution was led by the Bolsheviks[1], who used their influence in the Petrograd Soviet to organize the armed forces. Bolshevik Red Guards forces under the Military Revolutionary Committee began the takeover of government buildings on 24 October;[1] however 25 October (JC) was the date when the Winter Palace (the seat of the Provisional government located in Petrograd, then capital of Russia), was captured.

The Soviet revolution; millions upon millions dead, as a result of extremist radicals having absolute faith in the principles of communism. Is bringing about a more fair society possible when you have to commit mass murder to accomplish it?

1917-19: Greece vs Turkey (45,000)
1919-21: Poland vs Soviet Union (27,000)
1928-37: Chinese civil war (2 million)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_civil_war

The Chinese Civil War (traditional Chinese: 國共內戰; simplified Chinese: 国共内战; pinyin: Guógòng Nèizhàn; literally "Nationalist-Communist Civil War") or (traditional Chinese: 解放戰爭; simplified Chinese: 解放战争; pinyin: Jiefang Zhanzheng; literally "War of Liberation") was a civil war in China between the Kuomintang (KMT or Chinese Nationalist Party) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).[6] The war began in April 1927, amidst the Northern Expedition,[7] and ended in May 1950. The war represented an ideological split between the Western-supported Nationalist KMT, and the Soviet-supported Communist CCP.

The civil war carried on intermittently until the looming Second Sino-Japanese War interrupted it, resulting in an organized and temporary Chinese resistance to the Japanese invasion. The Japanese assault and occupation of Eastern China was an opportunistic attack made possible by China's internal turmoil. Japan's campaign was defeated in 1945, marking the end of World War II, and China's full-scale civil war resumed in 1946. After a further four years, 1950 saw a cessation of major hostilities—with the newly founded People's Republic of China controlling mainland China (including Hainan Island), and the Republic of China's jurisdiction being restricted to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and several outlying Fujianese islands. To this day, since no armistice or peace treaty has ever been signed, there is controversy as to whether the Civil War has legally ended,[8] even though the two sides have close economic ties.[9]

Millions dead due to faith in communism trumping the natural rights of human beings to live as they please. The resulting Great Leap Forward also caused the deaths of millions more due to famine.

1931: Japanese Manchurian War (1.1 million)

The Second Sino-Japanese War (July 7, 1937 to September 9, 1945) was the largest Asian war in the twentieth century.[4] From 1937 to 1941, it was fought between the Republic of China and the Empire of Japan. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Second Sino-Japanese War merged into the greater conflict of World War II as a major front in the Pacific Theatre.

Although the two countries had fought intermittently since 1931, full-scale war started in earnest in 1937 and ended only with the surrender of Japan in 1945. The war was the result of a decades-long Japanese imperialist policy aiming to dominate China politically and militarily to secure its vast raw material reserves and other resources. At the same time, the rising tide of Chinese nationalism and notions of self determination stoked the coals of war. Before 1937, China and Japan fought in small, localized engagements in so-called "incidents". Yet the two sides, for a variety of reasons, refrained from fighting a total war. The 1931 invasion of Manchuria by Imperial Japan's Kwangtung Army is known as the "Mukden Incident". The last of these incidents was the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of 1937, marking the beginning of full scale war between the two countries.[5]

Imperialist greed mixed with faith that the Emperor of Japan was a divinity. In Japan, the emperor was their version of God.

1932-33: Soviet Union vs Ukraine (10 million)
1934: Mao's Long March (170,000)
1936: Italy's invasion of Ethiopia (200,000)
(imperialism)

1936-37: Stalin's purges (unknown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin%27s_Great_Terror

Great Purge was a series of campaigns of political repression and persecution in the Soviet Union orchestrated by Joseph Stalin in 1936-1938.[1][2] Also described as a "Soviet holocaust" by several authors,[3][4][5] it involved the purge of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, repression of peasants, Red Army leadership, and the persecution of unaffiliated persons, characterized by widespread police surveillance, widespread suspicion of "saboteurs", imprisonment, and killings.[1] Estimates of the number of deaths associated with the Great Purge run from the official figure of 681,692 to nearly 2,000,000.

In Russian historiography the period of the most intense purge, 1937-1938, is called Yezhovshchina (Russian: Ежовщина, literally: Yezhovism), after Nikolai Yezhov, the then head of the Soviet secret police, NKVD.

In the Western World the term "the Great Terror" was popularized by the title of Robert Conquest's book. The book, The Great Terror, was in turn inspired by the period of the Great Terror (French: la Grande Terreur) at the end of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.

Communism purges itself of dissenters. Faith in communism trumps one's right to life and liberty once again.

1936-39: Spanish civil war (600,000)
1937-45: Japanese invasion of China (500,000)

1939-45: World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolution

We all know the story.

Millions of jewish people were murdered for being jewish. The Japanese, under the belief that their emperor was God, attempted to spread their fanaticism and empire across the pacific. Italian imperialism resulted in conflicts in Africa and Europe. Adolf Hilter's faith in aryanism and eugenics, as well as a belief in national socialism and "the greatness of Germany", resulted in countless lives lost. In China, communism costs the lives of many more, and in the soviet union, Stalin executes countless more.

Faith and greed.

1946-49: Chinese civil war (1.2 million)

More politically-motivated mass murders.

1946-49: Greek civil war (50,000)
1946-54: France-Vietnam war (600,000)
1947: Partition of India and Pakistan (1 million)
Because Hindus and Muslims could not live in peace, even after relieving themselves of British oppression. Faith again divides humanity.

1947: Taiwan's uprising against the Kuomintang (30,000)
1948-1958: Colombian civil war (250,000)
1948-1973: Arab-Israeli wars (70,000)
1949-: Indian Muslims vs Hindus (20,000)

1949-50: Mainland China vs Tibet (1,200,000)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_invasion_of_Tibet_(1950%E2%80%931951)

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) defeated the Tibetan army in a war at Chamdo on October 7 1950. This attack marked the beginning of Beijing’s campaign to integrate Tibet into People's Republic of China. This operation is called a peaceful liberation of Tibet by the PRC government[6][7] as the Seventeen Point Agreement was signed by delegates of the 14th Dalai Lama and PRC government affirming Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. It is called an invasion by the Central Tibetan Administration (the Government of Tibet in Exile) [8], the US Congress[9], military analysts including Jane's,[10][11] media sources and NGOs such as the International Commission of Jurists[12] and the Center for World Indigenous Studies[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] as the defeated Tibet had little choice but to sign the agreement.

Instances exist, however, when the PRC government gained support from a portion of the Tibetan population, including monastic leaders[21], monks[22], nobility[23][24] and ordinary Tibetans[23] prior to the crackdown in 1959. The PRC government and some Tibetan leaders[21] characterize PLA's operation as a peaceful liberation of Tibetans from a "feudal serfdom system."[25][26]

Samdhong Rinpoche, the 14th Dalai Lama, and other Tibetans in exile have accused the PRC government of a campaign of terror which led to the destruction of monasteries and disappearance of up to 1.2 million Tibetans. By 1962 only 70 of the original 2,500 monasteries in the Tibet Autonomous Region were left and 93% of the monks were forced out. The "1.2 million" figure for deaths since 1950 dates to a figure from the Tibetan Government-in-exile which they break down to 433,000 through military action, 343,000 through famine, 173,000 through imprisonment, 157,000 through execution, 93,000 through torture and 9,000 through suicide.[39]

Greedy communist imperialism destroys millions of lives. Oppression against millions due to religious differences. Wholesale destruction of Tibetan religion.

1950-53: Korean war (3 million)
1952-59: Kenya's Mau Mau insurrection (20,000)
1954-62: French-Algerian war (368,000)

1958-61: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (unknown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward

The Great Leap Forward (simplified Chinese: 大跃进; traditional Chinese: 大躍進; pinyin: Dàyuèjìn) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) was an economic and social plan used from 1958 to 1961 which aimed to use China's vast population to rapidly transform China from a primarily agrarian economy dominated by peasant farmers into a modern, agriculturalized and industrialized communist society. Mao Zedong based this program on the Theory of Productive Forces. It ended in catastrophe as it triggered a widespread famine that resulted in millions of premature deaths.[1]

Faith in a political and economic theory, imposed upon the masses by communist forces, directly resulted in the deaths of millions.

1960-90: South Africa vs Africa National Congress (?)
1960-96: Guatemala's civil war (200,000)
1961-98: Indonesia vs West Papua/Irian (100,000)
1961-2003: Kurds vs Iraq (180,000)
1962-75: Mozambique Frelimo vs Portugal (?)

1964-73: USA-Vietnam war (3 million)

Because communism was spreading through the use of violent force, and American imperialism would not accept a rival. Faith in American moral superiority, and Faith in communism.

1965: second India-Pakistan war over Kashmir
1965-66: Indonesian civil war (250,000)

1966-69: Mao's "Cultural Revolution" (11 million)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (simplified Chinese: 无产阶级文化大革命; traditional Chinese: 無產階級文化大革命; pinyin: Wúchǎn Jiējí Wénhuà Dà Gémìng; literally "Proletarian Cultural Great Revolution"; often abbreviated to 文化大革命 wénhuà dà gémìng, literally “Great Cultural Revolution,” or even simpler, to 文革 wéngé, “Cultural Revolution”) in the People’s Republic of China was a period of widespread social and political upheaval that led to nation-wide chaos and economic disarray, which would engulf much of Chinese society between 1966 and 1976.

It was launched by Mao Zedong, the chairman of the Communist Party of China, on May 16, 1966, who alleged that liberal bourgeoisie elements were dominating the party and insisted that they needed to be removed through post-revolutionary class struggle by mobilizing the thoughts and actions of China’s youth, who formed Red Guards groups around the country. It is widely recognized[citation needed], however, as a method to regain control of the party after the disastrous Great Leap Forward led to a significant loss of Mao’s power to rivals Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, and would eventually descend into waves of power struggles between rival factions both nationally and locally. Although Mao himself officially declared the Cultural Revolution to have ended in 1969, the term is today widely used to also include the power struggles and political instability between 1969 and the arrest of the Gang of Four as well as the death of Mao in 1976.

The damages caused by the Cultural Revolution were seen by observers,[who?] the majority of China’s population, as well as the Communist Party of China, as an unmitigated disaster for the country and its people. Although differing assessments continue to exist, in its official, historical judgment of the Cultural Revolution in 1981, the Party assigned chief responsibility to Mao Zedong, but also laid significant blame on Lin Biao and the Gang of Four (most prominently its leader, Jiang Qing) for causing its worst excesses.

More of the Chairman Mao's contributions to humanity's suffering. His faith in his political ideology was directly responsible for untold millions of deaths.

1966-: Colombia's civil war (31,000)
1967-70: Nigeria-Biafra civil war (800,000)
1968-80: Rhodesia's civil war (?)
1969-: Philippines vs New People's Army (40,000)
1969-79: Idi Amin, Uganda (300,000)
1969-02: IRA - Norther Ireland's civil war (2,000)
1969-79: Francisco Macias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea (50,000)
1971: Pakistan-Bangladesh civil war (500,000)
1972-: Philippines vs Muslim separatists (Moro Islamic Liberation Front, etc) (120,000)
1972: Burundi's civil war (300,000)
1972-79: Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's civil war (30,000)
1974-91: Ethiopian civil war (1,000,000)
1975-78: Menghitsu, Ethiopia (1.5 million)
1975-79: Khmer Rouge, Cambodia (1.7 million)
1975-89: Boat people, Vietnam (250,000)
1975-90: civil war in Lebanon (40,000)
1975-87: Laos' civil war (184,000)
1975-2002: Angolan civil war (500,000)
1976-83: Argentina's military regime (20,000)
1976-93: Mozambique's civil war (900,000)
1976-98: Indonesia-East Timor civil war (600,000)
1976-2005: Indonesia-Aceh (GAM) civil war (12,000)
1977-92: El Salvador's civil war (75,000)
1979: Vietnam-China war (30,000)
1979-88: the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan (1.3 million)
1980-88: Iraq-Iran war (1 million)
1980-92: Sendero Luminoso - Peru's civil war (69,000)
1980-99: Kurds vs Turkey (35,000)
1981-90: Nicaragua vs Contras (60,000)
1982-90: Hissene Habre, Chad (40,000)
1983-: Sri Lanka's civil war (70,000)
1983-2002: Sudanese civil war (2 million)
1986-: Indian Kashmir's civil war (60,000)
1987-: Palestinian Intifada (4,500)
1988-2001: Afghanistan civil war (400,000)
1988-2004: Somalia's civil war (550,000)
1989-: Liberian civil war (220,000)
1989-: Uganda vs Lord's Resistance Army (30,000)
1991: Gulf War - large coalition against Iraq to liberate Kuwait (85,000)
1991-97: Congo's civil war (800,000)
1991-2000: Sierra Leone's civil war (200,000)
1991-: Russia-Chechnya civil war (200,000)
1991-94: Armenia-Azerbaijan war (35,000)
1992-96: Tajikstan's civil war war (50,000)
1992-96: Yugoslavian wars (260,000)
1992-99: Algerian civil war (150,000)
1993-97: Congo Brazzaville's civil war (100,000)
1993-2005: Burundi's civil war (200,000)
1994: Rwanda's civil war (900,000)
1995-: Pakistani Sunnis vs Shiites (1,300)
1995-: Maoist rebellion in Nepal (12,000)
1998-: Congo/Zaire's war - Rwanda and Uganda vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia (3.8 million)
1998-2000: Ethiopia-Eritrea war (75,000)
1999: Kosovo's liberation war - NATO vs Serbia (2,000)

Just over halfway through the century, and I am already exhausted and cannot continue. Greed, faith, militant extremism... these resulted in millions upon millions more deaths. Soviet Union versus the United States in the Cold War nearly resulted in global thermonuclear warfare which could have wiped out all life on this planet.

What, exactly, motivates mankind to spend trillions of dollars creating countless weapons of mass murder, each of them individually potentially responsible for the combined deaths of entire wars, and preparing to launch them towards a political enemy? A rival nation or empire?

It is not rationalism, or moderation, or logic or sanity. Only faith that one's political ideology is so great that it warrants the planned annihilation of billions.

This may be religious faith, political faith, or nationalist faith. It may be imperialist greed, racism, or xenophobia. But it all boils down to unfounded, unbending, and unstoppable faith that one's own viewpoint and opinion is not only correct, but it is irrefutable and righteous.

Religious conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians, Sunnis and Shiites, Sudanese Arabs and Sudanese Africans, Iran and the West, Muslims and Christians in Europe, Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan, leftist political movements in South America and Asia, ultra-nationalist sentiments in Africa, and anti-religious intolerance in China as well as remaining imperialist fragments continue to result in the deaths of thousands upon thousands every year. The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are a result of Islamic extremists waging war on "the Great Satan" in the West, and American belligerence and arrogance to destroy a thousand innocent people for every terrorist killed.

I could not even begin to go in-depth at just the religious and politically motivated mass murders and genocides of the 20th century alone, supposedly the most enlightened century to date. Now add to that thousands and thousands of years of religious conflicts since the idea of religion first came around, and the imperialistic greed which has motivated all the rest of the conflicts, or added fuel to those fires.

Faith in religion, faith in politics, faith in empires, faith in nationalism, faith in communism, faith in militant extremism, faith in anarchism and terrorism, these forms of faith have resulted in the bulk of all atrocities to date. Faith, the absolute belief that you know and must be right about something you cannot know, and have not opened your mind to alternative theories to, is so destructive and dangerous that I cannot even begin to calculate its total destructive force to-date. I can't go into detail or even give a proper summary of the last century alone.

Faith is vile, as is greed. I have no use for faith, I have no use for nationalism, I have no use for political extremism, I have no use for militancy or communist revolution, I have no use for anarchy or terrorism. I have no use for organized religion, sectarian division, racism, sexism, or other major forms of prejudice. I have no faith in religion, no faith in nations, no faith in politics, no faith in aggressive forms of violence, no faith in artificial divisions, or supremacist thought. I have no faith in absolutism , subjectivism, nihilism, or crusades, holy wars, jihads, inquisitions, and other forms of madness.

In the broadest sense, faith and greed are responsible for the vast majority of all atrocities and injustices to-date, and greed has played a less prominent role than faith. If a person is truly greedy, they may be willing to commit heinous crimes to obtain their goals. But it takes a person who believes they are fighting for the greater good, for God, for justice, for freedom, for peace, or for an idealist viewpoint, which has resulted in the greatest of evils.

It is faith, not religion; but it is indeed faith. Closed-mindedness. Absolutism. Inflexibility. Apathy. Arrogance. Ignorance. Avarice. Faith is the poison which perverts all mankind. Reason and moderation, education and enlightenment, tolerance and prevention, those are the things which will cure humanity. But most of all, man needs to finally stop being so idiotic as to think he has it all figured out; DOUBT is the greatest cure for humanity's woes.

When someone doubts themselves or their ideology, they are less likely to be so fanatical as to cause mass death or oppression or prejudice to begin with. Perhaps with a mind filled with opinions, but also doubts, we could set aside our differences and live in peace. But only through reason and doubt can this be accomplished; faith and prejudice will get you nowhere.

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 12:24

Vuk

04-03-2009, 12:32

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 12:35

What started WWII? It was a landgrab by both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Was that faith? No, that was simply them trying to become more powerful.

There was more to Nazi ideology and Soviet revolution than land-grabbing, and you know it. What did the destruction of the Jews have to do with land?

There were closed-minded political ideologies at work exterminating all resistance, and in Japan, it was religious madness; belief that the Emperor was God.

Vuk

04-03-2009, 12:40

There was more to Nazi ideology and Soviet revolution than land-grabbing, and you know it. What did the destruction of the Jews have to do with land?

There were closed-minded political ideologies at work exterminating all resistance, and in Japan, it was religious madness; belief that the Emperor was God.

The Nazi and Soviet ideology was simply a way to excuse what they were doing so that the whole world did not turn on them. Do you think faith motivated the landgrab, or greed? It was greed. Why then is faith being blamed?
As for the Japanese, you are completely wrong. It was a new enlightened movement in Japan that pushed for rapid industrialisation, stricter education, and heavy militarization in order to compete with the West. They were thinkers, and they used the Emporer as a pawn. The Japanese Emporer had very little power in WWII except as a tool to control the people for those who held the real power.

*Note, the Emporer holding very little power is the opinion (and I think a well supported one) of revisionist historians, and not everyone accepts it. *

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 12:42

Indeed, the only high handed condemnation in this debate seems to be eminating from your corner of the ring.

I'm sorry, I thought I was burning in hell for being a Godless non-Christian rotten to the core sinner.

I am criticizing such closed-mindedness, and all forms of closed-mindedness.

The Crusades required nothing more than a politician in holy gowns with ambitions for his establishment. This seems very reasonable to me, he balanced his options, and came to the conclusion for Holy War by using his reason.

You are trying to wash religious faith out of the crusades? Okay, but I don't buy it.

Richard Ist executed thousands of Muslim prisoners because he reasoned that to keep them alive would weaken his precarious position in the Holy Land.

What was he doing in this supposedly Holy Land? Did some form of faith bring him there?

The French Revolutionaries reasoned that the only way to keep their freedom a reality, was to execute their fellows, and commit atrocious crimes against other nations.

They reasoned nothing. They believed wholeheartedly in their viewpoint so much that they were willing to murder. That takes a closed-mind, not a rational, open mind, and you know it.

You are quite right about humans having the gift of reason, though to praise it as some kind of moral compass is foolish "enlightenmentism", if I may.

Faith that God condemns those unlike you to hell is hardly enlightened, but furthermore, humans who actually reason do not throw away innocent lives on purpose due to some God or Greater Good.

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 12:44

The Nazi and Soviet ideology was simply a way to excuse what they were doing so that the whole world did not turn on them. Do you think faith motivated the landgrab, or greed? It was greed. Why then is faith being blamed?
As for the Japanese, you are completely wrong. It was a new enlightened movement in Japan that pushed for rapid industrialisation, stricter education, and heavy militarization in order to compete with the West. They were thinkers, and they used the Emporer as a pawn. The Japanese Emporer had very little power in WWII except as a tool to control the people for those who held the real power.

*Note, the Emporer holding very little power is the opinion (and I think a well supported one) of revisionist historians, and not everyone accepts it. *

If you are trying to present Nazi and soviet ideology as a form of reasoning, and not blind unrelenting belief that one's own viewpoint is absolutely correct, then you have a tough sell to make.

I am not buying it. That makes no sense to me. But you are free to believe whatever you want. I won't condemn you to hell for it.

Vuk

04-03-2009, 12:47

I am criticizing such closed-mindedness, and all forms of closed-mindedness.

While not being closed-minded concerning faith at all, right?

You are trying to wash religious faith out of the crusades? Okay, but I don't buy it.

The Crusades were a political response to year of muslim invasion that was pushing up into Europe and threatening the Pope's realm. The Crusade is not the work of God, it is the work of people wanting to protect their holdings and gain new ones.

What was he doing in this supposedly Holy Land? Did some form of faith bring him there?

Read the accounts of the crusaders. They almost all went there to gain land and power. Sure, some believed it was right, but personal gain was the main motivation for most I have read about.

They reasoned nothing. They believed wholeheartedly in their viewpoint so much that they were willing to murder. That takes a closed-mind, not a rational, open mind, and you know it.

No, they just didn't care about human life and were willing to do what it took to further their own ambitions.

Faith that God condemns those unlike you to hell is hardly enlightened, but furthermore, humans who actually reason do not throw away innocent lives on purpose due to some God or Greater Good.

You are right, they will ruthlessly murder others for their own ambition instead. No difference accept they are more efficient and there is not the good intent that comes with Faith.

Incongruous

04-03-2009, 12:54

One last thing;

how many mass murders and wars and genocides resulted from man thinking to himself "I do not know, but I am willing to listen to an alternative viewpoint?" How many wars were a result of open-mindedness as opposed to closed-mindedness? Only a closed mind can create such carnage. Faith is the greatest example of a closed mind.

Certainty where there should be none, is dangerous.

What exactly are you saying, that wars occur within some dark abyss of history and human experience where reason has ceased to exist?? I fail to see how the Athenians simply became blinded by faith when they commited themselves to war with Sparta, Perikles reasoned that war was a reasonable trade off for the Hegemony of Hellas.

The communists, as we all know were not blinded by faith, they were just like other political groups, power hungry, and so they killed people after having reasoned that it was the best way to keep their power. Stalin never once subordinated his reason to a faith in communism, he reasoned that it would have been very bad for his health.

I think you seem to view reason a singular and absolute facet of the human mind, it is not, and it differs from enviroment to enviroment, therefore producing greatly varying results. Western culture's enviroment is such that it has transformed reason into a psuedomorality, it makes social sense at the moment to be moral, however the current economic climate will most likely change that. proving the fallacy of reason as morality.

Vuk

04-03-2009, 12:55

If you are trying to present Nazi and soviet ideology as a form of reasoning, and not blind unrelenting belief that one's own viewpoint is absolutely correct, then you have a tough sell to make.

I am not buying it. That makes no sense to me. But you are free to believe whatever you want. I won't condemn you to hell for it.

No, the ideology is not reasoning, it is the product of reasoning. It is a tool that they used to excuse their actions. They do not believe it, they just use it as a tool for thier ambitions.

Vuk

04-03-2009, 12:58

Western culture's enviroment is such that it has transformed reason into a psuedomorality, it makes social sense at the moment to be moral, however the current economic climate will most likely change that. proving the fallacy of reason as morality.

People now adays put great Faith in reason. They think it will save them from the ignorant evils of faith. It did a smashing job in Bosnia. We went in there and murdered how many civilians?

Incongruous

04-03-2009, 13:08

I'm sorry, I thought I was burning in hell for being a Godless non-Christian rotten to the core sinner.

I am criticizing such closed-mindedness, and all forms of closed-mindedness.

You are trying to wash religious faith out of the crusades? Okay, but I don't buy it.

What was he doing in this supposedly Holy Land? Did some form of faith bring him there?

They reasoned nothing. They believed wholeheartedly in their viewpoint so much that they were willing to murder. That takes a closed-mind, not a rational, open mind, and you know it.

Faith that God condemns those unlike you to hell is hardly enlightened, but furthermore, humans who actually reason do not throw away innocent lives on purpose due to some God or Greater Good.

You are the one now being unreasonable, I have refrained from using my religion to batter you with personal condemnations, yet your dislike for relgion (not faith) seems to have lead you to put words into my mouth, setting me up a some kind of religious fanatic. I am no such thing.

I am not whitewashing religion out of the Crusades, nor faith, but I feel that your idea of reason is a rather outmoded Enlightenment one. The Crusades were caused by the Cluniac desire to see the Papacy dominate Europe, nothing to do with faith in God, it was all cold, hard reason. The simple knights and freemen who went on Crusade were also acting upon reason, for their minds were such that to disobey the Pater, the annointed descendent of Peter, the Pope, was to be condemned to hellfire and damnation for an eternity. The advance of humanity has enabled modern education, which expands the human mind to such an extent that to believe in such stuff these days is pure stupidity and unreasnable. But back then it would have been unreasonable to not go on Crusade for many men, again I stress the evr changing face of reason. It is simply the application of the human thought process to a given situation in a given enviroment, nothing else.

The French revolutionaries were great believers in reason, so much so that they killed for, they commited this absurdity because reason has no inherent qualities with which to tackle instinct with, and human instinct is violent and unaccepting. Your Western conception of reason has allowed you to seemingly turn it into a code of morality, only because of your culture and history, steeped in religion as it is.

I may even put it that, your conception of reason is in fact a faith, so entrenched in modern values, so unable to contemplate its own ammoral or "immoral" past, that it has ceased to reasonable at all...

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 13:15

While not being closed-minded concerning faith at all, right?

Correct. I have stated a rational case as to why faith is dangerous, while listening to opposing viewpoints, asking for rebuttals, and stating repeatedly "I do not know everything" and "I could be wrong".

That is called open-mindedness.

The Crusades were a political response to year of muslim invasion that was pushing up into Europe and threatening the Pope's realm. The Crusade is not the work of God, it is the work of people wanting to protect their holdings and gain new ones.

"God... pope... muslim..."

You can deny the faith that was involved in the Crusades, but I do not believe you. You are stating your opinion without supporting why faith was not responsible for men who believed that God wanted them to protect the Holy Land, with the blessings of the Pope, and pack up their lives and give them to a Holy mission in Christ's name.

You look at the greatest examples of faith-based atrocity and tell me "It was not faith!"

I don't buy it.

Read the accounts of the crusaders. They almost all went there to gain land and power. Sure, some believed it was right, but personal gain was the main motivation for most I have read about.

So... you admit, many of them killed in the name of their faith, and others were just greedy.

Isn't that what I said?

No, they just didn't care about human life and were willing to do what it took to further their own ambitions.

In your opinion, faith had nothing to do with it. But by that standard, faith has had nothing to do with anything. Faith absolutely played a role in the Crusades... you're standing on rhetorical quicksand, my friend.

You are right, they will ruthlessly murder others for their own ambition instead. No difference accept they are more efficient and there is not the good intent that comes with Faith.

Good intentions? If it spares several billion lives, I'd love it if I never heard the words "good intentions" again.

No, the ideology is not reasoning, it is the product of reasoning. It is a tool that they used to excuse their actions. They do not believe it, they just use it as a tool for thier ambitions.

I did not know you were qualified to speak for all the Nazis and Soviets who ever lived and murdered according to their philosophy. According to historical record, Nazis had an ideology which they truly believed in, as did the Soviets. You can argue this point all you like, but so far all I see is disagreement, not a rebuttal or evidence.

People now adays put great Faith in reason. They think it will save them from the ignorant evils of faith. It did a smashing job in Bosnia. We went in there and murdered how many civilians?

You are again using a differing definition of reason than I am.

A better wording of the above would be "People nowadays put great faith in their own ideology", which is again, a system of ideas and beliefs that one can put absolute faith in, and create mass destruction.

Reason simply means open mindedness and the ability to listen to new ideas and evidence, to use logic and critical thinking to attempt to solve problems, while maintaining healthy skepticism and doubt. Faith is simply certainty where there should be none.

If you replace "reason" with "ideology" your statement makes sense. But I do not seek to defend extremist ideology which people believe in unflinchingly; in fact I am condemning it. Thank you for agreeing to condemn it with me.

You are the one now being unreasonable, I have refrained from using my religion to batter you with personal condemnations, yet your dislike for relgion (not faith) seems to have lead you to put words into my mouth, setting me up a some kind of religious fanatic. I am no such thing.

I am not whitewashing religion out of the Crusades, nor faith, but I feel that your idea of reason is a rather outmoded Enlightenment one. The Crusades were caused by the Cluniac desire to see the Papacy dominate Europe, nothing to do with faith in God, it was all cold, hard reason. The simple knights and freemen who went on Crusade were also acting upon reason, for their minds were such that to disobey the Pater, the annointed descendent of Peter, the Pope, was to be condemned to hellfire and damnation for an eternity. The advance of humanity has enabled modern education, which expands the human mind to such an extent that to believe in such stuff these days is pure stupidity and unreasnable. But back then it would have been unreasonable to not go on Crusade for many men, again I stress the evr changing face of reason. It is simply the application of the human thought process to a given situation in a given enviroment, nothing else.

The French revolutionaries were great believers in reason, so much so that they killed for, they commited this absurdity because reason has no inherent qualities with which to tackle instinct with, and human instinct is violent and unaccepting. Your Western conception of reason has allowed you to seemingly turn it into a code of morality, only because of your culture and history, steeped in religion as it is.

Replace "reason" with political extremism, militant ideology, or greed, and I'd agree with you; but none of these things are reasonable. You seem to simply call anything which is both violent and non-religious to be "reason", and that is not so, while at the same time calling anything which is both violent and religious to have nothing to do with faith.

This is why I cannot agree with your assertions; they are completely backward, in my opinion.

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 13:20

I may even put it that, your conception of reason is in fact a faith, so entrenched in modern values, so unable to contemplate its own ammoral or "immoral" past, that it has ceased to reasonable at all...

Since you have placed the word "reason" over any form of political or nationalist extremism, and called it reason, I cannot agree with you.

Those things take absolutist belief, not moderation, tolerance, or open-mindedness. Hence they are not at all reasonable.

You continue to call non-religious faith "reason" and then call it faith, and accuse me of calling it reason. I do not, nor have I ever, defended non-religious faith or extremism. So you are simply passing off the crimes of those non-religious faithful onto me, when I am absolutely opposed to their violent and unreasonable ideologies.

That is the disconnect. Reason is not the same as "non-religious extremism", and every time you apply the word reason improperly, I don't really have to defend myself against it, because it does not mean what you say it does.

Incongruous

04-03-2009, 13:24

Replace "reason" with political extremism, militant ideology, or greed, and I'd agree with you; but none of these things are reasonable. You seem to simply call anything which is both violent and non-religious to be "reason", and that is not so, while at the same time calling anything which is both violent and religious to have nothing to do with faith.

This is why I cannot agree with your assertions; they are completely backward, in my opinion.

Here we may come to the crux of the argument, does faith even exist? I doubt it, I believe all human beings reason, yet due to being individuals subject to different enviroments and situations (and ability) we come to vastly different conclusions.

I still wish for you to disprove that faith (which is absolute) had anything to do with the Cluniac Papcy's decleration of war upon the House of Islam. I also take issue with you removing greed from the sphere in which reason is present, I do not understand why.

Incongruous

04-03-2009, 13:28

So you are simply passing off the crimes of those non-religious faithful onto me, when I am absolutely opposed to their violent and unreasonable ideologies.

That is the disconnect. Reason is not the same as "non-religious extremism", and every time you apply the word reason improperly, I don't really have to defend myself against it, because it does not mean what you say it does.

I fail to see how my argument on reason implies some kind of slur upon your person, unless you claim a personal affinty with reason? You most certainly do not have to defend yourself against my words, because I am talking about reason, which of coarse has no personal connection to you...

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 13:29

Here we may come to the crux of the argument, does faith even exist? I doubt it, I believe all human beings reason, yet due to being individuals subject to different enviroments and situations (and ability) we come to vastly different conclusions.

I still wish for you to disprove that faith (which is absolute) had anything to do with the Cluniac Papcy's decleration of war upon the House of Islam. I also take issue with you removing greed from the sphere in which reason is present, I do not understand why.

Does faith exist?

Ask Rhyfelwyr, who knows for certain that God exists, and non-Christians are void of morality and will burn in hell, and nothing will ever make him change his mind. Of course faith exists. And not just religious faith. If you believe, unflinchingly, that all Scientologists are rotten to the core for their beliefs, then you have faith in that viewpoint. Nevermind the fact that some Scientologists might actually be good people. Non-religious faith exists as well. Listen to Sean Hannity: "The United States is the single greatest gift God ever gave this earth." He knows that for certain, and he also knows that anyone who disagrees with that viewpoint is a hateful anti-American.

Faith is everywhere.

Banquo's Ghost

04-03-2009, 13:32

The language in some of these recent posts has become intemperate again.

Please calm yourselves.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 13:33

I fail to see how my argument on reason implies some kind of slur upon your person, unless you claim a personal affinty with reason? You most certainly do not have to defend yourself against my words, because I am talking about reason, which of coarse has no personal connection to you...

Perhaps a poor choice of words; what I meant to say was you are asking me to defend reason itself against the crimes of non-religious extremists; my point is that I don't have to, because they were acting out of non-religious faith, not reason or moderation, tolerance and open-mindedness.

I am not personally under attack, but from those accusations, neither is reason, because reason wasn't responsible. Absolutist faith was responsible.

I'm off to bed. Good luck, fellow sinners! :bow:

edit: Banquo-

Apologies; If it means anything to anyone, I've been perfectly calm the whole time, and my use of strong words was not directed at anyone personally, I think. If I've made anyone uncomfortable, I apologize.

Incongruous

04-03-2009, 13:37

Does faith exist?

Ask Rhyfelwyr, who knows for certain that God exists, and non-Christians are void of morality and will burn in hell, and nothing will ever make him change his mind. Of course faith exists. And not just religious faith. If you believe, unflinchingly, that all Scientologists are rotten to the core for their beliefs, then you have faith in that viewpoint. Nevermind the fact that some Scientologists might actually be good people. Non-religious faith exists as well. Listen to Sean Hannity: "The United States is the single greatest gift God ever gave this earth." He knows that for certain, and he also knows that anyone who disagrees with that viewpoint is a hateful anti-American.

Faith is everywhere.

Rotten to the core, is a common line in this debate isn't it? Funny, since I have never used this word, that you persist in using it, no? Hannity sounds like a tribalist bigot, but a man whom still applies his brand of reason to situations, does he make money off what he says?

Incongruous

04-03-2009, 13:40

reason or moderation, tolerance and open-mindedness

Why affiliate these? Do you percieve them to be linked by some abstract and universal quality? It seems that you have brought friends to the date.

Askthepizzaguy

04-03-2009, 14:02

Rotten to the core, is a common line in this debate isn't it? Funny, since I have never used this word, that you persist in using it, no? Hannity sounds like a tribalist bigot, but a man whom still applies his brand of reason to situations, does he make money off what he says?

To bring this intense and frank, but within-reason discussion to a softer note;

Hannity is a tribalist bigot, in my opinion, but there are those who would think I am arrogant and blasphemous, in their opinion. Fortunately, we exist in a time where people can have very strong disagreements and still not go out and kill each other. If you're saying that Hannity doesn't believe a word he says, and says things that appeal to a nationalistic faith-based audience, for the purposes of making money... I frankly don't have a rebuttal! I think that's a very, very strong possibility.

Why affiliate these? Do you percieve them to be linked by some abstract and universal quality? It seems that you have brought friends to the date.

Hmmm...

We keep on missing one another's definitions of things. And yes, I do believe that reason and open-mindedness are linked together by an abstract and universal quality; but I don't know that. What I do find, is that when someone is being reasonable, they are being open-minded. What is reason if it is not listening, considering, criticizing, and being skeptical? Only an open, independent mind can be reasonable, under what I consider to be the definition of reason. But language is so fluid at times, you can be using your words in a way that I would never use them, and you may understand what you mean, and I do not; conversely, my words may not make much sense to you even if they make perfect sense to me.

That is why so many clarifications are necessary; we all speak in common languages (some differ from one another, but they are agreed-upon langauges) and yet, we all add a bit of our own personality to it, and we change the meanings of words; language is almost a living entity, the way it changes, adapts, and evolves. We speak in everyday language that is partly subjective, but in a reasoned debate, if we aren't speaking the same language, we cannot reach a conclusion together.

We always have to agree on terms; if when I say reason, it means "non-religious viewpoint" to you, and it does not mean that to me, then we will of course tread on one another's toes and disagree all too often. If by faith, I mean absolute and unbending certainty where there is none, and to you it means "religious viewpoint", we will constantly disagree about things.

Language is a barrier to understanding, sometimes.

reason or moderation, tolerance and open-mindedness

Not directly related to this thread, and for a separate discussion; I tend to find that extremist viewpoints are not rational or reasonable, but moderate viewpoints tend to be more tolerant and accepting. I consider that more reasonable and open-minded.

I use the words so often, together, that they all almost mean the same common word; if there were a word for the blending of these words, I would use it. That is what I place my beliefs in, and I doubt it less than I doubt other things. But to be clear; I do still have doubts. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother stating a case here as to why I believe that faith is wrong and reason is correct, I would just "KNOW" it and be done with it, secure in the knowledge that I am right.

I come here to express the viewpoint so that you can utterly demolish it, if you can; which helps me find the flaws in my reasoning, and that helps it become ever more reasonable.

Rhyfelwyr, Bopa, Vuk, and all the others who have debated me here, have helped me realize where my strong arguments are and where my weak ones are; reinforced some views and challenged others. I could not have a debate without the alternative viewpoint. I have been quite forceful with my assault on faith, but I did not come to the debate armed with just verbal missiles; I came with as many quiet, reflective thoughts as I could. Eventually, the argument needed some teeth to put a finer point on it, but mostly, I have tried to be as fair as possible.

I've still reached the conclusion that faith is inexorably linked with false certainty and closed-mindedness, and often linked with extremism and violence. I've reached the conclusion that reason and doubt and open-mindedness, tolerance and moderation are the antithesis of those concepts, and are much better for all of us.

But that is such an abstract concept, and such a... "leap of faith"... that I need you guys to challenge it as best you can, or else I can never say that the ideas withstood the fury of scrutiny. Good ideas are forged in criticism; that is why I wish faith was more open to criticism than it is. It might have been a good idea, if it were.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-03-2009, 14:13

Frankly, Pizzaguy, I think your tone is becoming increasingly shrill and offensive.

If this is a reasonable debate then the invective you have used has no place here. Further, your refusal to discuss the nature of Faith itself, coupled with your rejection of awkward points you disagree with and demands to retract statements and concede points, has made you look increasingly unreasonable.

Not to mention, you have yet to apolagise for accusing me of dishonesty.

Vuk

04-03-2009, 14:19

Listen to Sean Hannity: "The United States is the single greatest gift God ever gave this earth." He knows that for certain, and he also knows that anyone who disagrees with that viewpoint is a hateful anti-American.

Faith is everywhere.

Yup, we hateful American christians...truely...the root of all evil. Not that it is related, but I think Hannity has a lot of good points. I have not seen him calling for violence or rattling a saber once, simply asking Americans to pay attention and use the political process like it was meant to be used. I admittedly do not watch him, but from the few videos I have seen on the internet he does not seem that bad. You can disagree with him, but I think it is ridiculous to say that he is inciting violence or war. (the things you say are associated with faith) He may be wrong with his opinions, but he says what he thinks is necassary to maintain his country where people CAN disagree. Do you have a link to any time when he tries to incite violence or warfare? If so, I would like to see it.

Correct. I have stated a rational case as to why faith is dangerous, while listening to opposing viewpoints, asking for rebuttals, and stating repeatedly "I do not know everything" and "I could be wrong".

That is called open-mindedness.

You say you may be wrong, but do you believe it? I think the certainty you have displayed in many posts proves otherwise. You ask for rebuttals for one reason, to prove them wrong. That is not wrong, it is natural in a debate, but it is not being open-minded if you would never consider letting any of those rebuttals change your opinion, regardless of what they said. Would you read someone's rebuttal with enough of an openmind and enough consideration as to let it possibly ever change your mind? I have had my mind changed before in debates ATPG, many times. I have also been hard-headed before and approached myself for it later when I realised I was wrong, but I generally do my best to be completely open-minded. You debate a lot, and no one is ever right on everything. Have you ever had your mind changed on anything?
I am sorry to doubt the openess of your mid ATPG, but it is insulting to me when I feel that my posts are not even being taken seriously by you.

"God... pope... muslim..."
You can deny the faith that was involved in the Crusades, but I do not believe you. You are stating your opinion without supporting why faith was not responsible for men who believed that God wanted them to protect the Holy Land, with the blessings of the Pope, and pack up their lives and give them to a Holy mission in Christ's name.

You look at the greatest examples of faith-based atrocity and tell me "It was not faith!"

I don't buy it.

Warning: contains more truth about the Catholic church and islam that some catholics and muslims may find offensive! Again, if you cannot handle this and simply reply with a rebuttal or counter-argument, DO NOT READ THIS!

As I have explained before, the Pope is the one who was behind the Crusades, and they were in response to muslim invasion. The Pope did what he did in direct contradiction to the Bible. He obviously could not have had faith in it. He simply used faith as a tool. Sure, faith WAS involved, and I even said it was. I do not know why you say that I said otherwise. I simply said that the one responsible for them (the Pope) was motivated by ambition, not faith. The Lords and Kings who went on the Crusade saw it as a wise and necassary action to protect their lands from Muslim invasion, while making a profit for themselves. Many of the Crusaders were street scum and criminals who went on the crusades to avoid punishment and as a chance to pillage and enrich themselves. There definately were many people who believed it, a lot of them went there unarmed without the intention of killing thinking that God would protect them and they could take the Holy Lands without fighting. Read Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He has many sources (unfortunately the Crusades are his weak point, so it is not perfect, but still the best I have read) describing the Crusading armies, and many sources from those who went on the Crusades. I think from reading them that it would be safe to assume that MOST of the Crusaders were motivated by personal gain. Many of them rebelled against the Pope and started pillaging. It was personal ambition, not faith that was mostly responsible for the Crusades. Faith based is not the right word, Faith masked is. Faith is usually a good thing, which is why ambitious, bad people wrap their bad in it.

So... you admit, many of them killed in the name of their faith, and others were just greedy.

Isn't that what I said?

Many is not most, and that does not prove that faith was responsible for it. The Pope was and the invasion of Eastern countries is what promted the Pope. I have already talked about that in the spoiler.

In your opinion, faith had nothing to do with it. But by that standard, faith has had nothing to do with anything. Faith absolutely played a role in the Crusades... you're standing on rhetorical quicksand, my friend.

Again you attribute to me the opposite of what I said. I said that faith DID play a role, but was not what was behind the Crusades, or what deserves the blame for them.

Good intentions? If it spares several billion lives, I'd love it if I never heard the words "good intentions" again.

Stupid fools may have went to the Holy Lands thinking they were doing the work of God, but is that any worse than the thousands of scum soldiers, knights, and kings who reasoned that they could profit by it, and committed attrocities simply to further their own ends, all the while justifying their actions to the world by masking it in something that people knew as good? How about the Pope who declared the Crusades to protect his political power in Europe and expand it into the East? Good intentions have made people do bad things, but more often than not it is bad intentions that make people do even worse things.

I did not know you were qualified to speak for all the Nazis and Soviets who ever lived and murdered according to their philosophy. According to historical record, Nazis had an ideology which they truly believed in, as did the Soviets. You can argue this point all you like, but so far all I see is disagreement, not a rebuttal or evidence.

I never said that there were not people who believed it, in fact, I said that opposite. I said that it was used as a TOOL by Hitler and Stalin to control the people who believed it and to justify their actions to the world. Hitler kept most of his attrocities out of site and out of mind, and most Germans did not know they were happening. He also used his military to keep tight control over them and his schools to reeducate him. His program was the product of his reasoning on how to gain power. Look at all the Russians Stalin killed because they did NOT believe him. Many of the Russians and Germans (though I cannot claim a statiscal percentage on it, nor am I sure if it was most, but I would bet it was) would not support what their leaders did if they knew. That is why they went through such great lengths to keep them secret and to kill all who opposed them. It was Stalin and Hitler's reasoning that kept them in power and that was responsible for the attrocities commited. Stalin, Hitler and the important people working for them were the ones to blame, not the Germans and Russians as a whole. The ones to blame knew that what they were saying was BS (and yes, again, there is historical proof for that. They told the people lies that they knew were not true), and had no faith in it. They simply wanted to further their own ambitions.

You are again using a differing definition of reason than I am.

Yes, you seem to be confusing morality and reason. Reason can be used against other humans to further ones own ambitions. Morality would be to want to help humanity even at a cost to ones self, but in order for that to be reason, there has to be an aim for that to be considered best. (ei, it is the right thing to do) Without this morality though, reason can be very negative, as faith can be negative without morality.

Reason simply means open mindedness and the ability to listen to new ideas and evidence, to use logic and critical thinking to attempt to solve problems, while maintaining healthy skepticism and doubt. Faith is simply certainty where there should be none.

Yeah, but you are assuming that the motivation of reason will always be moral. If it is self aggrandizement, then you would listen to other ideas, use logic and critical thinking to develop ways to make yourself more powerful, all the while remaining skeptical that it may not be the best way to make yourself more powerful. Reason is just a method, it needs to have an aim. That aim can be bad or good. In that way it is no different than Faith, which needs to have a purpose which can be bad or good. The only different as that faith IS tied to a belief that you are doing right, while reason can be used for bad simply without caring about wrong or even taking pleasure in it.

Replace "reason" with political extremism, militant ideology, or greed, and I'd agree with you; but none of these things are reasonable. You seem to simply call anything which is both violent and non-religious to be "reason", and that is not so, while at the same time calling anything which is both violent and religious to have nothing to do with faith.

This is why I cannot agree with your assertions; they are completely backward, in my opinion

As I said above, reason is simply a method, a tool, that can be used for good or bad. Faith needs a leader (which can be good or bad), and the leader is usually the result of reason.
Warning: Muslims! Prophet bashing goodies are included inside! If you are allergic to that, then wait for the next bag of goodies!
Look at islam. Many people have faith in it and commit acts of terrorism because of their faith in it, but the guy who made it up, Mahammad, did so to make himself richer and more powerful. He used to process of reason to create a control mechanism that both made him powerful in his life and insured that he would be famous for centuries later. The on to blame is the leader, because he did the wrong by duping the idiots who now commit acts of terror in his name (I am talking specifically about modern terrorists and militant muslims of his time, not muslims as a whole), not on the idiots who think they are doing the right thing.