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.
Not everyone is trying to provide "substance" for their beliefs that will satisfy someone else. If someone just believes what they believe and isn't trying to persuade you to believe the same way, why do you insist on evidence or substance? That's something that does perplex me about atheists. Why the heck do you care what someone else believes if it doesn't impact you at all?
And no, this is not the time for the recitations about separation of church and state and the impositions of one's beliefs on others. As you are well aware, a great number of people of faith hold separation of church and state just as dear as you do and have no desire to convert others to their way of thinking.
Yet even in those cases, the call for evidence persists, and I'm not sure why.
What I don't understand is why a religious person would enter a discussion in a thread called "Why do some people make such bad arguments for the Superiority of their Religion?", and not provide examples of those arguments for the Superiority of their Religion".
I'll turn it around and give me as an example. I don't just enter a conversation and suddenly say, "Buddhism is the best religion", and expect not to be questioned about that. Even when I was the principal -- "the boss" of my school, so to speak -- I didn't just give commands that I expected others to follow. We had discussions, and if I found I couldn't support my expectations, then I had to change them.
For example, how can the religious claim that their books are from the word of God when they have never had the originals and their books are nothing more than copies of copies that have been changed, altered and edited thousands of times?
OP, I think the answer is that there is little rational thought applied to their beliefs.
If anyone takes the time to deconstruct their particular beliefs, there is no way a person could continue to swallow "whatever" beliefs whole - they start falling apart with the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
People are taught to believe certain things or they are attracted to certain ideas - most of it is pretty irrational in nature.
What you seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge is that your evidence and logical reasoning are based on YOUR preferred assumption about what the source of our very existence (Reality) is NOT. There is no such evidence about what it is NOT! For those who believe God is the source of our existence, all evidence and logical reasoning can support that preferred assumption over yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Yes, to you, it is. Everyone is not you.
That Faith is (as I said) not (on reason and evidence) a good reason for coming to conclusions is rationalism. And as I said, though it may be useful and even necessary for this or that person yto get through the day, it is not (on the general empiricals of reason) a Good (Valid) reason to believe anything.
To clarify it with an analogy, someone might want to believe that saucer -pilots built the pyramids (indeed i knew someone "I Need Mysteries") who did, but evidence considered, that is not a good reason to believe that claim.
Nor of course does it mean that a Dainikinist olling up here to proclaim their faith does not have the burden of proof. There is no law that they have to but refusal to back up their claims will of course sabotage their credbility.
The bold is entirelyYOUR Faith based on your presumption of what the source of our very existence (Reality) is NOT! There is no evidence that supports your Faith in that presumption about our basic Reality.
As long as you can differentiate between faith and fact, that's fine.
the problem is when facts are being determined by activism. lets hedge the facts because they are academic for now and we need to stop this wrong today.
What I don't understand is why a religious person would enter a discussion in a thread called "Why do some people make such bad arguments for the Superiority of their Religion?", and not provide examples of those arguments for the Superiority of their Religion".
I'll turn it around and give me as an example. I don't just enter a conversation and suddenly say, "Buddhism is the best religion", and expect not to be questioned about that. Even when I was the principal -- "the boss" of my school, so to speak -- I didn't just give commands that I expected others to follow. We had discussions, and if I found I couldn't support my expectations, then I had to change them.
Ha, well you do have a point there, and my answer would be that a person gets caught up in the conversation, which may well have drifted from the title question, and forgets what thread she's in.
Yes, if someone claims their religion is superior, then they should be prepared to have good reasons to say that. Why they make "such bad arguments" is likely because they really think that their arguments aren't bad.
I don't think my "religion", such as it could be called, is superior to any other, so the thread really doesn't apply to me.
I just find the constant demands for evidence tiresome. There isn't any evidence to show anyone else for what people believe. To be fair, I find the canned responses to the constant demands for evidence tiresome, too.
That Faith is (as I said) not (on reason and evidence) a good reason for coming to conclusions is rationalism. And as I said, though it may be useful and even necessary for this or that person yto get through the day, it is not (on the general empiricals of reason) a Good (Valid) reason to believe anything.
To clarify it with an analogy, someone might want to believe that saucer -pilots built the pyramids (indeed i knew someone "I Need Mysteries") who did, but evidence considered, that is not a good reason to believe that claim.
Nor of course does it mean that a Dainikinist olling up here to proclaim their faith does not have the burden of proof. There is no law that they have to but refusal to back up their claims will of course sabotage their credbility.
Of course everyone is not me. I am the Mighty Queen. The rest of you are the people who stand on the curb and wave as I go by!
I agree that for most things, we do want solid evidence. The resolution of crimes, medical decisions, who built the pyramids.
For some other things, only belief or intuition will do, and a well-rounded person makes use of all of it and knows when each is appropriate.
Ha, well you do have a point there, and my answer would be that a person gets caught up in the conversation, which may well have drifted from the title question, and forgets what thread she's in.
Yes, if someone claims their religion is superior, then they should be prepared to have good reasons to say that. Why they make "such bad arguments" is likely because they really think that their arguments aren't bad.
I don't think my "religion", such as it could be called, is superior to any other, so the thread really doesn't apply to me.
I just find the constant demands for evidence tiresome. There isn't any evidence to show anyone else for what people believe. To be fair, I find the canned responses to the constant demands for evidence tiresome, too.
Circular argumentation inevitably results in such tiresome reiteration of responses, MQ. Desiring that our beliefs about God be accepted by everyone (whether for or against) is a very human trait that makes these discussions possible.
We see here yet another popular atheist word game. Religious faith is not inherently different from any other species of faith. We exercise faith in large and small ways every day in contexts having nothing to do with religion. Most of the time, this faith is based on rational analysis of the best available data. The leap of faith is often a very small one; we don't even think about it.
The atheist pretense is that religious faith is irrational magical thinking, based on no evidence or even flatly contrary to all evidence and reasoning. The game is to insist religious faith is fundamentally different from any other species of faith and is, by definition, irrational. The fact that billions of otherwise rational people, including scientists and academics, hold deep religious faith would seem to be a problem for this position, yet the atheists continue their game. I can't remember who it was, but I got one longtime contributor to paint himself into the embarrassing corner of insisting that, yes, those billions of believers are all irrational - there is some mental quirk whereby even Nobel laureates "go irrational" when the topic is religion; only he and his fellow atheists have escaped this trap. Really, ya think?
Do some believers turn to God on what seems like very thin ground? Sure, many in the atheist community do likewise. Typically, both rely on the pronouncements of authority figures, which may be lazy but is scarcely irrational. Do some believers gravitate to religion mostly for social, political or economic reasons? Sure, and ditto for atheists. Are there some really stupid believers? Sure, just as there are plenty of really stupid atheists and really stupid people of all types. Are some religious beliefs bizarre, contrary to the best available evidence, and even irrational? Sure, but so are plenty of secular beliefs.
My faith is neither irrational nor contrary to the best evidence and arguments known to me. The best evidence and arguments known to me have, after a long and diligent quest, led me to the point where my leap of faith was quite small considering the massive stakes. I assume an atheist whose faith in atheism is based on something more that a couple of Richard Dawkins videos on YouTube would say likewise. Neither the atheist nor I can know, except with some sort of internal "knowing," that our convictions are true. In living as though they are true, we exercise faith.
I've read umpteen attempts to differentiate religious faith as something wholly different from every other species of faith, including atheistic faith. I've never read one that was convincing. It always boils down to the same word game. The real argument is always "My atheistic faith is based on better evidence and better reasoning than your theistic faith," which is a far cry from my theistic faith being irrational or groundless. The word game attempts to avoid the reality that both theistic and atheistic faith are based on a wide variety of evidence and inferences, a wide variety of arguments, and - necessarily - some amount of speculation. An intelligent, educated and rational person might hold either position.
This word game is precisely the counterpart to atheists' insistence that atheism is not a belief system. Atheists deny the existence of God. The non-existence of God is their belief system. Because an atheist can't know there is no God, he or she must make a leap of faith toward that position. When the atheist lives as though there is no God, he or she is exercising faith that is epistemologically indistinguishable from mine. It's simply a matter of where one thinks the best evidence and arguments point.
It's quite astonishing to me that atheists keep relying on these word games. I don't know of any theistic counterpart to this. It certainly doesn't suggest that atheists have any great confidence in the strength of their position. Insisting religious faith is irrational is sort of like one big ad hominem fallacy.
Fail. Now you may be an uncommon believer that was conned into belief by the presentation of evidence when there were no atheists around to show how misrepresented it was, or you may be the more common (I guess) type who was taught to Believe in Faith and then just grabbed the 'evidence' from various apologetics sites in order to prop the Faith up.
But I'd be willing to bet that, after losing the arguments on 'evidence' you'd do just like the others and resort to Faith and the irrational 'you can't be 100% sure' based on the illogical 'God is real until 100% disproven' last ditch denial.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-23-2020 at 08:32 PM..
Of course everyone is not me. I am the Mighty Queen. The rest of you are the people who stand on the curb and wave as I go by!
I agree that for most things, we do want solid evidence. The resolution of crimes, medical decisions, who built the pyramids.
For some other things, only belief or intuition will do, and a well-rounded person makes use of all of it and knows when each is appropriate.
I's say a well -rounded poerson would know evough of belief and science and how the latter has eroded the former to keep a lot of Beliefs in the pendeing tray until science can explain what's going on. We saw the leaping on NDE's as evidence for the Beliief of heaven and that crashed because it became clear that people got the experience they'd come to be;l8ieve in and now it looks like just another mental effect.
Just how long is it going to be before science get a little credit and Faith a little less?
Now I am fine with you and anyone else believing whatever they like, but going public with any claims will attract question and either appealing to Faith, or personal preference won't do. Not on a rational or even reasonable level, even if (like you and a lot of believers) you don't try to make Faith -claims leek a bit better by trying to abuse atheism or dismiss science as 'opinion'.
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.
