Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a Pagan I think your post is spot on. Faith is something personal & it can't be proven. Sadly there ae those who feel the need to shove whatever faith on to others & that's when the problems start. IF people could let others believe OR not believe in peace the world would be a much better place. It's not ones faith that's the problem it's forcing others though fear, etc that's the problem.
Exactly. I say this for philosophical consistency: respect the justification.
If one has faith in Jesus Christ and has faith as their justification for that belief, they should respect that same justification when it is manifested in another. Why is it so hard to accept that the same faith one has for their religion is felt by another person has for their own?
If everyone respected the justification of faith, there would be no more issues when it comes to religion...instead, people would find some other excuse to be horrible to one another.
Last edited by victorianpunk; 04-10-2017 at 03:36 AM..
Or they are simply metaphysical based pseudo-science thoughts. That's the difference between Philosophy and Science. Philosophy is metaphysically based and Science is empirically derived knowledge. This is why the two separated long ago. Philosophy remained Philosophy and Scince became Natural Science.
First, there are indeed countless phenomena which cannot be approached scientifically. Second, philosophy is at the basis of science, as any scientist will tell you:
Science approached the "natural world," while philosophy handles everything else. There is no scientific equation to figure out where freedom should end and security can begin. That is philosophy, and just one example of it. And before I hear "waaaa!!!!! dat's common sense!!!!!" I ask this:
Is it fair to scrutinize Muslims more than non-Muslims at security and immigration check points? That is a question science cannot answer. It can give us data (Muslims are 11% more likely over all to carry out a terrorist attack) but can't give us insight into what should be done with that data.
In short, science provides data about the natural world, and philosophy has to be applied to act on that data.
Is it ethical to ban Muslims? If this is a "common sense question" then I guess the Western World should just put you in charge.
Oh, and the cure for AIDS is also common sense. Trust me. I'm not gonna post it here, but yeah, it's easy. All those people who've studied medicine for their entire adult lives and have institutions for this stuff, they ain't got jack on a rando from the internet like me. Yep, it's common sense.
^The above is basically your argument for the demonstrably false idea that "philosophy is fading away" and it's "all common sense."
That's really It. We unbelievers have no problem with people's own beliefs, but the danger is always that believing something for no good reason will compromise the way they act in their job,family, and in the social and political sphere. It is a bad thing in principle, even if it does not become pernicious as in the influence of organized religion or real threats as in the well -funded crackpot Creationism.
It is a social duty to push back these socially toxic influences where they belong - personal beliefs.
Ok...and where is the scientific evidence that any individual has a "social duty"? Can "social duties" be tested in a lab? Or is the idea that "social duties" exist just something that you believe in without any real empirical evidence?
Sooner or later, when people try to argue that "only science has the answers", they present a belief they have within themselves that is unjustifiable by science alone.
This shouldn't even need answering. Science has the best track record of finding facts. Religion has about the worst
There are many arguments about showing that it is best for us to live in accordance with the best models the world has for reality -not the worst.
It follows that organizations that promote belief in the worst models -claims without validation - should be 'rolled back' as I put it, even if they did not have a bad effect on society. And there are solid arguments as to how it does.
This shouldn't even need answering. Science has the best track record of finding facts. Religion has about the worst
Yes, and synthesizers have the best tract record for making music, while multiplication tables have the worst.
Oh, but they are two completely different things that do completely different functions? It is unfair to expect music from a chart children use to learn basic math?
Likewise, religion is not about facts. Anyone who thinks that is a fool. Religion is about faith...that's my point.
Quote:
There are many arguments about showing that it is best for us to live in accordance with the best models the world has for reality -not the worst.
Living exclusively in the rational, scientific reality, would be something like this:
We all have beliefs and feelings and opinions that are not scientific.
Quote:
It follows that organizations that promote belief in the worst models -claims without validation - should be 'rolled back' as I put it, even if they did not have a bad effect on society. And there are solid arguments as to how it does.
"We are committed to nurture and protect this sacred space through education and inspiration. We strive to create an ever-expanding community of doers and dreamers, and work to ensure that tomorrow’s generations will experience the same mesmerizing beauty we behold today."
That was on the "mission statement" page of the Appalachian trail conservatory. There is no scientific way to validate the clam of "mesmerizing beauty." Should this organization too be "rolled back"?
Makes no sense at all. You just want to believe no matter what. Very sad.
You do not have enough free will to not believe.
One of the biggest displays of arrogance and ignore the "new atheists" constantly perform is the notion that those of us with fake are lacking in "free will." I would say the opposite: most of us question it all the time. I have yet to read ONE "new atheist" type talk about questioning the value of science.
They slavishly follow the philosophy of positivism (while ironically and ignorantly proclaiming "philosophy is dead") and never even consider applying other philosophical schools of thought.
This wasn't always the case. Once upon a time we had real atheists like Nietzsche who approached the question of God and faith from philosophy. Now we have a bunch of MIT eggheads who know nothing but the laboratory and data collection who think they know more about philosophy than Kierkegaard.
I have never read about a "new atheist" who ever questioned science with anything but more science. That's as slavish as a fundamentalist who will only be dissuaded from believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis if they can find biblical justification for doing so (which, btw, does exist)
Saying "you don't have the free will to give up faith!" is ironic coming from people who do not have the free will to give up science, or even mindfully step away from the paradigm of science for a moment. Granted, everyone steps away from logic, reason, and science now and then, but not all are honest about it.
OP, do you cherry pick what you believe in the Bible?
Are Jesus and the OT god related/same?
Ive found that some here just follow the Jesus philosophy, yet reject the absurdities of the OT god. Bizarre as it is, it is easy to understand for those who just wish not to cope with reality. Even more bizarre would be to actually believe it all with no evidence.
As a former Christian, my faith was based on tradition, peer pressure and pulpit sermons. After actually researching and reading the Bible, I walked away. It didn't measure up to the religious indoctrination I was presented. For me to continue as a believer I would have had to excuse way too many absurdities.
OP, do you cherry pick what you believe in the Bible?
No. I believe it all. The question is, how to I interrupt it? I don't interrupt it literally, as it wasn't meant to be interrupted literally. To save time I'll link to this: //www.city-data.com/forum/relig...y-fallacy.html
Quote:
Are Jesus and the OT god related/same?
Ive found that some here just follow the Jesus philosophy, yet reject the absurdities of the OT god. Bizarre as it is, it is easy to understand for those who just wish not to cope with reality. Even more bizarre would be to actually believe it all with no evidence.
I'm a Gnostic Christian. I believe the god of the OT is the Satan of the NT, and that Jesus was sent from that which came before creation (Pleroma)
Quote:
As a former Christian, my faith was based on tradition, peer pressure and pulpit sermons. After actually researching and reading the Bible, I walked away. It didn't measure up to the religious indoctrination I was presented. For me to continue as a believer I would have had to excuse way too many absurdities.
I was raised by a very non-religious family, and "Jesus Christ" was a curse word in my house said when someone was exasperated. I found Gnosticism in adulthood and converted.
I am actually pretty much against indoctrinating kids. It's one thing to say "this is what mommy and daddy believe" and letting them decide, another to chose for them what to believe.
Yes, and synthesizers have the best tract record for making music, while multiplication tables have the worst.
Oh, but they are two completely different things that do completely different functions? It is unfair to expect music from a chart children use to learn basic math?
Likewise, religion is not about facts. Anyone who thinks that is a fool. Religion is about faith...that's my point.
Living exclusively in the rational, scientific reality, would be something like this:
We all have beliefs and feelings and opinions that are not scientific.
"We are committed to nurture and protect this sacred space through education and inspiration. We strive to create an ever-expanding community of doers and dreamers, and work to ensure that tomorrow’s generations will experience the same mesmerizing beauty we behold today."
That was on the "mission statement" page of the Appalachian trail conservatory. There is no scientific way to validate the clam of "mesmerizing beauty." Should this organization too be "rolled back"?
There'a blunderbuss argument and no mistake.
If you are going to make music, use a musical instrument - or a synthesizer, if you must and not a mathematical table.
If you are going to do mathematics use mathematical tables.
If you are going to argue for religion, use Faith
If you are going to argue for fact, use science.
If you are going to argue for faith using science, fudge it with a mix of selectivity, deprecation of science where it doesn't support the faith and holding it up as gospel truth if it supports faith -even if it is misrepresented science.
We have seen it here all the time. And philosophy is a very ripe ground for pretending that the science we rely every day of our lives is worthless, just as Quantum and indeterminacy are waved about to somehow pretend that science is wrong, unless it supports the faith.
I haven't time to watch a talk on the philosophy of science - I have seen talks of the rationale of the science-method, much less irrelevant videos on sci -fi characters.
If you have a point to make, make it. The absurd attempt to make science -based conclusions about ecology and the like presented in poetic appeals that dress up 'we shouldn't trash our own home' in emotional termslook as though science is faith -based dalls so laughably flat that I'm amazed you even tried it.
P.s what was the subject again? Yes! No evidence, but believe anyway.
So the P.s of what I suspect (I may be wrong) was the Borg idea is on topic. Science marching soulless robots insisting on conformity. Science bad.
Godfaith, beauty, humanity and frreedom. Godfaith good.
Which you refute yourself by a post about science talking about the wonder and beauty of nature and how we should value it. Science not Borg.
Religion - Obey! Believe! Accept! Religion Borg.
But you know that very well as do many god-believers, which is why they scrap organized religion and opt for what the call agnosticism - which is merely irreligious god-faith.
That would be fine, if they just say 'I have no evidence - but I believe anyway". We atheists are ok with that, even if they won't recognize the damage organized religion does or help to roll it back, even in they do. We simply have no real qurrel.
So it was surprising that some of the bitterest hate and attacks on atheism (fielding the same sort of accusations about science Borg-ness, being a religion with Darwinism as the Dogma and of course the accusations of 'fundamentalism') came from agnostic irreligious theists, with who we have no quarrel at all.
I have a theory....I'll go get the icon later.... there..that the religious have the evidence of the Bible and the basis of Church to fall back on. They can argue for the reliability of the Bible (sorta) and the Good the Church does.
"Agnostics" (irreligious God -believers) have given up that support, and now have nothing but various kinds of First -cause and I/D arguments. I won't mention any names but threads started to validate First -cause claims became as bitter and abusive as anything I have seen. And the debate is academic!
But it's faith -based, that's the point. The irreligious theist has FAITH in this sorta-god and Faith is all he has. Trouts knows, that's no real cause for quarrel, but Faith seem to mean that the existence of those who don't believe is a challenge, affront and threat to godfaith, even of the irreligious kind.
It explains why this pointless battle is being fought at all. It explains why agnostic theists are stuck in a bad alliance with the religious, not to mentions creationists. It explains why the venom and hate pops up so quickly in first-cause debates with "Agnostics". It explains everything.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-11-2017 at 03:46 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and not a mathematical table.
