|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 24, 2020 18:01:15 GMT
So...in a maybe desperate attempt to get this back on track...since you vehemently deny my claims that you "have no foundational unprovable axioms," is it safe to concluded that you do have foundational unprovable axioms to which you hold? This is not a question of semantics. If someone "claims" that Santa does not exist, I hope you're not going to use your "hey, you do have unprovable axioms in your belief system" to prove him wrong or he most likely will laugh in your face. You're simply sidestepping, deliberately, I presume. The issue was not at all that "you should have faith in the same things I do." The issue was..."you have faith." If you hold to unprovable axioms, that is "faith." By definition. That's the idea you seemed to have an issue with to begin with. And you're wrong. Hence your desperate attempts to change the subject and sidestep? Again, I'm not at all insisting that you have faith in the same things I do. That's an absolute crock of shit. 1) Recent studies have revealed something called a "Halo Effect"--the measurable positive impacts that churches make on their communities that far outweigh whatever benefits they accrue. 2) It's also completely devoid of awareness of history. I would recommend a series of books by Thomas Cahill called "Hinges of History" that you will not read. The first is called "How the Irish Saved Civilization." Further, the vast majority of charitable organizations that benefit the world are not just religious in origin; they are Christian in origin. For every secular or atheist charitable organization you name, I could name no less than one hundred that have Christian origins. 3) Some of our basic cultural values that we take for granted and consider "normal" are not normal at all. They are due to the influence of Christianity in the west. Most people deficient in historical knowledge view other historical eras anachronistically, assuming "their values are like ours." They're not. Heck, even Richard Dawkins acknowledges the values that emerge out of religious belief in his book The God Delusion (the one you said you were going to read and respond to, but never responded to it, if you did even read it). So, if you want facts and data, there it is. But they are unlikely to sway your entrenched beliefs which are probably more informed by emotion and whatever negative experiences you've had than actual reality. Cue the next profanity-laden rant... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2020 18:27:24 GMT
This is not a question of semantics. If someone "claims" that Santa does not exist, I hope you're not going to use your "hey, you do have unprovable axioms in your belief system" to prove him wrong or he most likely will laugh in your face. You're simply sidestepping, deliberately, I presume. The issue was not at all that "you should have faith in the same things I do." The issue was..."you have faith." If you hold to unprovable axioms, that is "faith." By definition. That's the idea you seemed to have an issue with to begin with. And you're wrong. Hence your desperate attempts to change the subject and sidestep? Again, I'm not at all insisting that you have faith in the same things I do. That's an absolute crock of shit. 1) Recent studies have revealed something called a "Halo Effect"--the measurable positive impacts that churches make on their communities that far outweigh whatever benefits they accrue. 2) It's also completely devoid of awareness of history. I would recommend a series of books by Thomas Cahill called "Hinges of History" that you will not read. The first is called "How the Irish Saved Civilization." Further, the vast majority of charitable organizations that benefit the world are not just religious in origin; they are Christian in origin. For every secular or atheist charitable organization you name, I could name no less than one hundred that have Christian origins. 3) Some of our basic cultural values that we take for granted and consider "normal" are not normal at all. They are due to the influence of Christianity in the west. Most people deficient in historical knowledge view other historical eras anachronistically, assuming "their values are like ours." They're not. Heck, even Richard Dawkins acknowledges the values that emerge out of religious belief in his book The God Delusion (the one you said you were going to read and respond to, but never responded to it, if you did even read it). So, if you want facts and data, there it is. But they are unlikely to sway your entrenched beliefs which are probably more informed by emotion and whatever negative experiences you've had than actual reality. Cue the next profanity-laden rant... And most of this most likely by the same types who expended a fortune trying to prove that Noah's ark was somewhere on top of a mountain. I don't know much about Richard Dawkins, except that the most I've see him referenced to is by religious types wich in by book is not a very good sign. You of course conveniently forget about the priests who caused pre-columbian civilizations to go extinct because they practiced wholesale human sacrifice. It's funny how you people never mention these excesses or what about Joan of Arc, tortured and killed by the catholic church only to be canonized a century later by the SAME catholic church? How about science being stopped in its tracts first by the christians and then by the muslims? Are you denying this too? As for your self-serving references of people who are in it up to the gills and therefore will only find "positive things" to say about it with a passing reference to Dawkins to (give respectability to your cause). You make me think of these mafia types who marry their daughter to some "respectable" rich guy hoping that said "respectability" will rub off on their businesses. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 24, 2020 20:20:47 GMT
You're simply sidestepping, deliberately, I presume. The issue was not at all that "you should have faith in the same things I do." The issue was..."you have faith." If you hold to unprovable axioms, that is "faith." By definition. That's the idea you seemed to have an issue with to begin with. And you're wrong. Hence your desperate attempts to change the subject and sidestep? Again, I'm not at all insisting that you have faith in the same things I do. That's an absolute crock of shit. 1) Recent studies have revealed something called a "Halo Effect"--the measurable positive impacts that churches make on their communities that far outweigh whatever benefits they accrue. 2) It's also completely devoid of awareness of history. I would recommend a series of books by Thomas Cahill called "Hinges of History" that you will not read. The first is called "How the Irish Saved Civilization." Further, the vast majority of charitable organizations that benefit the world are not just religious in origin; they are Christian in origin. For every secular or atheist charitable organization you name, I could name no less than one hundred that have Christian origins. 3) Some of our basic cultural values that we take for granted and consider "normal" are not normal at all. They are due to the influence of Christianity in the west. Most people deficient in historical knowledge view other historical eras anachronistically, assuming "their values are like ours." They're not. Heck, even Richard Dawkins acknowledges the values that emerge out of religious belief in his book The God Delusion (the one you said you were going to read and respond to, but never responded to it, if you did even read it). So, if you want facts and data, there it is. But they are unlikely to sway your entrenched beliefs which are probably more informed by emotion and whatever negative experiences you've had than actual reality. Cue the next profanity-laden rant... And most of this most likely by the same types who expended a fortune trying to prove that Noah's ark was somewhere on top of a mountain. I don't know much about Richard Dawkins, except that the most I've see him referenced to is by religious types wich in by book is not a very good sign. You of course conveniently forget about the priests who caused pre-columbian civilizations to go extinct because they practiced wholesale human sacrifice. It's funny how you people never mention these excesses or what about Joan of Arc, tortured and killed by the catholic church only to be canonized a century later by the SAME catholic church? How about science being stopped in its tracts first by the christians and then by the muslims? Are you denying this too? As for your self-serving references of people who are in it up to the gills and therefore will only find "positive things" to say about it with a passing reference to Dawkins to (give respectability to your cause). You make me think of these mafia types who marry their daughter to some "respectable" rich guy hoping that said "respectability" will rub off on their businesses. In other words, no rebuttal of substance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2020 20:43:26 GMT
And most of this most likely by the same types who expended a fortune trying to prove that Noah's ark was somewhere on top of a mountain. I don't know much about Richard Dawkins, except that the most I've see him referenced to is by religious types wich in by book is not a very good sign. You of course conveniently forget about the priests who caused pre-columbian civilizations to go extinct because they practiced wholesale human sacrifice. It's funny how you people never mention these excesses or what about Joan of Arc, tortured and killed by the catholic church only to be canonized a century later by the SAME catholic church? How about science being stopped in its tracts first by the christians and then by the muslims? Are you denying this too? As for your self-serving references of people who are in it up to the gills and therefore will only find "positive things" to say about it with a passing reference to Dawkins to (give respectability to your cause). You make me think of these mafia types who marry their daughter to some "respectable" rich guy hoping that said "respectability" will rub off on their businesses. In other words, no rebuttal of substance. Rebuttal for what? Your stupid semantic games? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Dec 26, 2020 20:48:29 GMT
Ok, just watched link and Lennox misunderstands Faith completely, as least from the perspective of Faithism.
On the flip side Dawkins doesn't understand its value.
Freon
I think I listened to this debate live. I'm not sure what you mean by "Lennox misunderstands Faith completely, at least from the perspective of Faithism." Is that, like, a "prosperity gospel" faith in faith itself? As for Dawkins, it's not that he misunderstands the value of faith. He misdefines it. He defines it as "blind belief, regardless of evidence for or against" (my quotes represent my own paraphrase--those are not his exact words). It's not completely his fault. That was what emerged out of the Enlightenment which pitted "faith" against "reason." Unfortunately, that's a far cry from the "faith" described in the Bible, for which biblical writers appealed to experience, testimony, etc. Not at all "blind belief." The biblical concept of faith is the Greek word pistis, in which "belief" or "choice of opinion" is a tiny part, overshadowed by loyalty, trust, faith fulness, etc. We use that concept when it comes to national or organizational loyalty ("keeping the faith") or in marriage ("faithful"), neither of which have much to do with what opinions you choose to hold that cannot be supported by evidence. Dawkins argues against a very feeble straw man. When it comes to "faith in Jesus the Messiah," it's not opinion about certain historical details; it's trust, loyalty, allegiance. What I meant was that he sees no value in practicing the skill of believing in something with no proof, the core requirement of faith. Denying one's self this incredible tool, just for the purpose of being 'right', is the greatest error someone of intelligence can make. Putting pride over utility.
Faithism, as far as I can tell, is the ONLY loophole that allows someone of science (me), to also be someone of genuine Faith.
Freon
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 27, 2020 13:57:40 GMT
What I meant was that he sees no value in practicing the skill of believing in something with no proof, the core requirement of faith. Denying one's self this incredible tool, just for the purpose of being 'right', is the greatest error someone of intelligence can make. Putting pride over utility.
Faithism, as far as I can tell, is the ONLY loophole that allows someone of science (me), to also be someone of genuine Faith.
Freon
I think it's more than that. I think it's denying what one actually does all the time. We all (yes, all) rely on things we can't prove. Dawkins as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2020 16:42:32 GMT
What I meant was that he sees no value in practicing the skill of believing in something with no proof, the core requirement of faith. Denying one's self this incredible tool, just for the purpose of being 'right', is the greatest error someone of intelligence can make. Putting pride over utility.
Faithism, as far as I can tell, is the ONLY loophole that allows someone of science (me), to also be someone of genuine Faith.
Freon
I think it's more than that. I think it's denying what one actually does all the time. We all (yes, all) rely on things we can't prove. Dawkins as well. Yeah, and that means there's no such thing as bullshit, huh?  |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Dec 27, 2020 17:38:26 GMT
What I meant was that he sees no value in practicing the skill of believing in something with no proof, the core requirement of faith. Denying one's self this incredible tool, just for the purpose of being 'right', is the greatest error someone of intelligence can make. Putting pride over utility.
Faithism, as far as I can tell, is the ONLY loophole that allows someone of science (me), to also be someone of genuine Faith.
Freon
I think it's more than that. I think it's denying what one actually does all the time. We all (yes, all) rely on things we can't prove. Dawkins as well. I think you and I are saying the same thing, but coming from opposite sides of the Faith spectrum. You seem like someone who has Faith because your heart tells you to. And I do, because it makes sense to do so on a pragmatic level. Dawkins, however, sees NO value in Faith, and worse, ties it to religion only. The second that connection is made, with no other connections possible, he demonstrates a lack of understanding of Faith itself, and therefore every other argument he makes becomes naive.
But in response to your point, it is all about perception. Dawkins does not KNOW he uses Faith regularly, and therefore (sadly) gains no benefit from it.
Freon
|
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Dec 28, 2020 4:29:21 GMT
I think it's more than that. I think it's denying what one actually does all the time. We all (yes, all) rely on things we can't prove. Dawkins as well. Yeah, and that means there's no such thing as bullshit, huh?  If you reduce the cosmos to bullshit/no bullshit, then yes. And no. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Dec 28, 2020 4:31:13 GMT
Read his list of charges against you. I guarantee he doesn't know that you're not an overly immoderate moderator, and that what you are is really far worse than that (for him). You're Canadian. You have the ideas of a mental midget.* *(Not breaking any rules according to MFA's standards) You're not getting enough hugs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2020 13:01:07 GMT
Yeah, and that means there's no such thing as bullshit, huh? If you reduce the cosmos to bullshit/no bullshit, then yes. And no.It's like arguing with a potted plant... |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Dec 28, 2020 16:36:13 GMT
If you reduce the cosmos to bullshit/no bullshit, then yes. And no.It's like arguing with a potted plant... It's warmer here by the window. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 31, 2021 0:02:44 GMT
Humanism is basically a scientific approach. Faith is not required.Scientific method is brutally rigid. You have to see and observe things in real time.
Guess you never heard of that fella named Einstein.
|
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 31, 2021 0:06:02 GMT
I'm beginning to reconsider our need for an additional idiot.
I've studied scientific method for many years. View Attachment
It took you years to study a 7 step process? 
|
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Mar 31, 2021 0:09:49 GMT
I know at least one argument against religion: It's stupid. Everybody has a "faith base" at some level.
Nah, faith is believing in something you know not to be true.
We might live our lives on a set of axioms, 1+1=2 and we all agree on that. That's not faith though. Faith would be to say that nah, you're wrong, 1+1=99.
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Mar 31, 2021 15:12:37 GMT
Everybody has a "faith base" at some level.
Nah, faith is believing in something you know not to be true.
We might live our lives on a set of axioms, 1+1=2 and we all agree on that. That's not faith though. Faith would be to say that nah, you're wrong, 1+1=99.
Its funny you say that because your leftist buddies are calling 2+2=4 racist mathematics. This is where the moral relativism of evolution theory has taken us. Shameful. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Mar 31, 2021 16:17:40 GMT
Everybody has a "faith base" at some level.
Nah, faith is believing in something you know not to be true.
We might live our lives on a set of axioms, 1+1=2 and we all agree on that. That's not faith though. Faith would be to say that nah, you're wrong, 1+1=99.
That is a "misdefinition" of biblical faith...a result of the Enlightenment's insistence on a strict bifurcation between "faith" and "reason." So you're arguing against an Enlightenment definition that does not at all conform to the biblical word ( pistis in Greek), which, at a very basic level means "belief," but is stronger than opinion--it means "trust" or even "allegiance." It also includes the idea of faith fulness. It is the basis, for example, of my marriage--or any good marriage, for that matter. It is not at all "anti-reason" or "opposed to reason." It is also, as I said, at the foundation of any belief system--confidence, trust, and allegiance in things you cannot prove. Axiomatic "beliefs." So...faith is believing in something you know not to be true? That is absolutely not what it means whatsoever. That's among the flimsiest straw men I've ever encountered, and to engage with that kind of "faith" must be particularly quixotic. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on Apr 2, 2021 12:50:59 GMT
Nah, faith is believing in something you know not to be true.
We might live our lives on a set of axioms, 1+1=2 and we all agree on that. That's not faith though. Faith would be to say that nah, you're wrong, 1+1=99.
That is a "misdefinition" of biblical faith...a result of the Enlightenment's insistence on a strict bifurcation between "faith" and "reason." So you're arguing against an Enlightenment definition that does not at all conform to the biblical word ( pistis in Greek), which, at a very basic level means "belief," but is stronger than opinion--it means "trust" or even "allegiance." It also includes the idea of faith fulness. It is the basis, for example, of my marriage--or any good marriage, for that matter. It is not at all "anti-reason" or "opposed to reason." It is also, as I said, at the foundation of any belief system--confidence, trust, and allegiance in things you cannot prove. Axiomatic "beliefs." So...faith is believing in something you know not to be true? That is absolutely not what it means whatsoever. That's among the flimsiest straw men I've ever encountered, and to engage with that kind of "faith" must be particularly quixotic. I agree. I my also add that atheists have faith that evolution is true. However, their faith is calculated by impossible odds combined with scientific laws that say evolution is not true. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on Apr 9, 2021 21:50:29 GMT
That is a "misdefinition" of biblical faith...a result of the Enlightenment's insistence on a strict bifurcation between "faith" and "reason." So you're arguing against an Enlightenment definition that does not at all conform to the biblical word ( pistis in Greek), which, at a very basic level means "belief," but is stronger than opinion--it means "trust" or even "allegiance." It also includes the idea of faith fulness. It is the basis, for example, of my marriage--or any good marriage, for that matter. It is not at all "anti-reason" or "opposed to reason." It is also, as I said, at the foundation of any belief system--confidence, trust, and allegiance in things you cannot prove. Axiomatic "beliefs." So...faith is believing in something you know not to be true? That is absolutely not what it means whatsoever. That's among the flimsiest straw men I've ever encountered, and to engage with that kind of "faith" must be particularly quixotic. I agree. I my also add that atheists have faith that evolution is true. However, their faith is calculated by impossible odds combined with scientific laws that say evolution is not true.
Add it all you want, I don't have faith in evolution. Therefore you're wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Nov 10, 2021 23:39:03 GMT
I didn't see this thread the first time around. I just read The Faithist Manifesto, and honestly it's a mess, a jumble of not particularly well-organized thoughts. But I wanted to steelman the Manifesto and respond to some of the points I think it is trying to make.
1) Religious people have a happier outlook on life than non-religious people.
I think this is generally true, though of course there are miserable religious people and positive non-religious people. But believing something because it makes you happy is less useful than confronting hard truths and responding intelligently. It may make us unhappy that there is no Heaven, nor a god that loves & cares for us, but confronting this loss and responding appropriately will help us in the long term more than trying to believe even when you don't. This is especially true for someone like Freon, who seems to know he (?) is deluding himself.
2) Faith is a wise choice for a happier outlook.
Someone could tell me that believing in Shi'a Islam would make me wealthy, wise, 10 years younger, and 2 inches thinner around the waist. I could agree that belief in Shi'a Islam does all of that. I could choose to start following the rituals of Islam: prayers, mosque visits, holidays, the hajj, etc. But I couldn't choose to believe that there is one God, Muhammad is his messenger, and Ali is his friend. I just can't make myself believe, even if I agree it would confer all these benefits. Faith really isn't a conscious choice.
3) Choosing to follow a religion to gain faith's benefits confers all the benefits of actual belief.
I don't think this is explicitly said in the piece, but it buttresses the argument. However, I don't see a good argument why we should agree with this assumption. The benefits of belief seem to be side effects of actual belief and practice. You have to believe & practice to serve God or destroy your attachments in order to make the worldly benefits flow. You can start tithing and singing in the choir, but if you do it to feel good instead of to praise God, you won't get the good feeling anyway.
Additionally, the discussion of agnosticism is a total mess, and the discussion of atheism doesn't distinguish between strong atheism (It is impossible that God exists) and weak atheism (I see no reason to believe God exists).
|
|
