Making rules and definitions is hard.  You have to make them broad enough to given them proper meaning, but narrow enough scope to have a use.  For example, what is an airplane?  Well, saying something that has two wings, a rudder a pilot and co-pilot and a rudder would be too inclusive and disqualify biplanes.  If we say, a flying machine to carry humans, that would include blimps.  You have to get it just right.

Words are also often shaped by our use of them, even if we don't mean to specifically redefine the word.  For example, if we say that a movie is entertaining because it makes us cry, it blurs the line of what entertainment is to the point that it's hard to use it for anything.  Another example would be if we were to say that Superman 64 is not a bad game.  If that's not bad, well, what exactly is?

So, I now pose my question: If believing in a religion--at least the abrahamic religions--does not qualify as insane or at least ridiculous, what does?  This is not a mockery, it's a serious question for evaluation.  By all means, the claims made about miracles in any other scope other than religious would immediately be regarded as delusional behaviour.

There is a fair option, though.  Extraordinary claims are not absolutely always false, but we most certainly cannot accept them on faith.  What is required is justification -- evidence.  All a religion need do is provide adaquate evidence of the claims made.  By all means, that's not an unfair request.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

If you are willing to accept that statement, most certainly you can accept mine.

Posted by Ellyoda Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:53:33 (comments: 46)
<< prevnext >>
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:58:12
Hires, the problem with not taking the Bible literally is that then you have to justify why you take some parts literally and not others.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:28:50
Yoda the last part I posted showed that their are more types of evidence than just scientific proofs, and that the events I detailed may happen to a wide group of people. And I didn't change your definition of faith, I was simply giving you examples of how that definition doesn't apply to true religion (but would more specifically apply to a cult). And yes there are many cults out there parading around as religions. My point about the bible is simply this, some things in the bible simply do not mesh with well with scientific evidence, which is okay because the bible was written by humans. Humans have been continuously working to get closer and closer to true knowledge (though we can never fully grasp and "true knowledge") and therefore some things in the bible could be attributed to an exaggerating overzealous storyteller. Anything that the bible offers that can advise us on morality I feel is a good thing, sure it isn't a science as to what examples should be taken literally and which should not, but really Christianity has always been a very personal faith and it is okay if it differs from person to person. That's part of what makes its unique.

@Yoda, your argument against Solopsism, only pushes me further into another circle about the necessity of faith. I don't feel like you've made any ground with me, and you probably don't feel like I've made any whatsover either. Therefore, this whole discussion "feels" like a stalemate to me, but I do respect each of your viewpoints to the utmost degree.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:34:31
BTW you never argued how faith in one's self is a bad thing.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:42:03
Oh and I was replying to angrybeaver's comment about all religious members lacking philosophical sophistication...My fault for not consistently including the names of each person I am responding to, but last night I was quite sleepy. My Buddhist comment was not directed at you, Yoda.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:48:55
I'll break this down as far as possible:

1 - If the faith you describe HAS evidence, provide it.

2 - If unjustified claims are considered valid, what is your methodology for deciding what is true and false?

"BTW you never argued how faith in one's self is a bad thing."

You missed it, then.  Believing you can literally fly is likely to get you killed.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:38:11
No, as in always a bad thing.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:04:53
I wouldn't argue it would work out to always be a bad thing.  You could have faith that you'll win the lottery, then actually win it, in which case it was a good thing in that you wouldn't have bought the ticket otherwise.  In reality, though, the faith was realistically a bad idea and you lucked out.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:45:54
Do you believe I'm a millionaire nuclear physicist?  No?  Is that a religion?

Do you believe there's an old man calling you an idiot from 786 lightyears away?  Is not believing that a religion?

If you call any of these "religion" then the word no longer holds any value.  A religion has a dogma and tenets, there are no such things with regard to not believing a claim.

Atheism by all means shouldn't even be a word.  We don't have words for not believing anything else, such as aoldmanyellingatmeist.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:49:52
I should also clarify terminology:

Atheist means without theism - without a belief in the divine.  This is not an assertion.

By contrast, agnosticism is without gnosticism - without a knowledge of the divine.
 
Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:06:57
Haruhism

Believe in the supreme ruler. Haruhi Suzumiya.
<< prevnext >>
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
Login @ The VG Press
Username:
Password:
Remember me?