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 23:16:47
I know exactly what Atheism means, but I don't understand how its not a dogma. Your examples are moot in that they are in no way shape or form related to the word Atheist. Atheist like the abrahamic religions chose to view things a certain, and live their lives a certain way based on unfounded reasons...There is no evidence that suggests that their isn't a god, just as their isn't that suggests their is a god.

Getting back to faith for the last time, if I remember correctly you said in one of your posts that faith is never a good thing or that it doesn't have any practical applications...Success for the most part, depends on a person having faith in themselves, for example every successful sports figure.
 
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:30:50
No, you clearly don't know what atheism means.

A dogma is something hold up as an definitive authority.  Saying you haven't been given a good reason to believe something isn't a dogma.  My examples aren't moot because they're all the equivalent -- they reject a claim because there's no justification for believing them.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens

See: Burden of proof.

There are also no "rules of atheism."

Every successful sports figure has a good reason to believe they will succeed.

At any rate, I've covered that earlier, and ultimately I don't really care because whether something is positive or negative doesn't affect whether or not it's true.
 
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:43:14
There are only positives and negatives, there are no real truths.
 
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:49:45
Something is either true or it isn't.  Whether we find out or not is irrelevant.  That's also entirely tangental and pointless to state.

You never actually addressed what makes believing in a god or gods is any more valid than any other unsubstantiated claim.  Similarly, it's unclear why, by the logic of unknowns you keep going back to, how you'd choose to believe in the god of Christianity over the gods of Hinduism or the spirits of Shintoism.  Seems as though you'd have to believe in all of them.
 
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:20:27
And of course there wouldn't be a problem with that *wink wink* if one had faith that logical contradictions can be true. What's wrong with that? WinkWink
 
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:04:36
Alright I concede I'm crazy guys, I'm batshit insane! Because I believe in transcendence, and you guys don't. And yes I did answer your question about what makes religion different than any other unsubstantiated claim, remember that whole thing I detailed about about their being more to evidence than merely scientific "degrees" of truth. Experience is king in this world.

@At angry what is this bologna your spouting about logical contradictions, you can't just pop in here erratically and cosign on everything Yoda's saying.
 
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:21:42
If you have something that you interpret as a religious experience, fine, but that's not evidence to anyone else (though I am curious as to what was enough to convince you).

So, what is the difference between faith and belief by your definition?  Mine was reason, typically by evidence.  You say you have evidence by personal experience, yet have faith.  What, by your definition, is the difference?

You believing by the sake of something personal, I have no problem with, though I think it is more likely that a personal revelation is a misinterpretation of what actually happened.

What I do have a problem with are logical fallacies and moving the goalposts.  First you argued the "uncaused cause" which is essentially special pleading resulting in an infinite regression.  That was not only not plausible, it was logically fallacious.  Not done and the prior premise pointless, suggesting "atheism is a religion."  That corrected, onward we go while throughout argue solipsism or similar such then by offering alleged evidence, go entirely contradictory to the point.  Oh, and the fact that personal revelation still hasn't differentiated religious belief from mental delusion.

So I would suggest that before snapping at a snarky remark about logical contradictions that you get your own in order.

I hope I can clarify, in angry_beaver's stead, what logical contradictions he may have had in mind.

Corinthians 12:31
Covet earnestly the best gifts.

Exodus 20:17
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,

Galatians 5:4
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

John 10:28
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

1 John 4:8
God is Love.

1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear

Leviticus 25:17
Thou shalt fear thy God

Mt.7:8, Luke 11:9-10
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Proverbs 1:28
Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me early but shall not find me.

(And I'm aware that despite your objections to the idea of believing logical contradictions that you also stated prior that the Bible was written by man.  No one disagrees.)

Sorry that I've become more blunt, but I made a prior blog post that you didn't see that was related.  However, I included pre-written responses to repetitive arguments.  You've argued 3/6.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak at length about a topic of interest, and respect you as a person for doing so.  Your beliefs are not subject to such respect.  I will clarify no one called you crazy, I called faith -- by my definition of belief without reason -- blurs the definition of crazy to the point that it eliminates the criterion for claiming an assertion is crazy.

I have one last question: given your justification for belief is personal experience, is it then correct for someone who has NOT had such an experience to reject that religious claim?
 
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:52:42
I think you're right, they have faith, while I merely believe there is a god.

As far my experience, I won't get into specifics, but I think I'd definitely liken it to the first time that you knew you were in love...You do believe in love, right Yoda?...I'm talking about something beyond merely our hormonal responses.
 
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:04:05
Sorry for snapping at Angry, but I just felt like he was slacking, and I've realized that I need more time to prepare and think about my own arguments...@Yoda I seriously concede victory to you at the moment, but I'm sure I'll have more to add in just a little while.
 
Sat, 12 Jul 2008 20:31:02
"@At angry what is this bologna your spouting about logical contradictions, you can't just pop in here erratically and cosign on everything Yoda's saying."

I'm not cosigning, but I've made very similar points in my own argumentation on this subject on other sites (including GameSpot, in the Church and State union), and I wanted to add what I had to say to what Yoda did. As far as the logical contradiction stuff, I was referring to belief in all gods simultaneously, which Yoda suggested would be the fair and proper action when there is no criterion of evidence necessary for any particular one of those beliefs.

If X implies A and Y implies ~A ("not A"), then believing "X and Y" requires complete faith, since it is a logical contradiction. In this way, one could believe in the existence of all gods without recognizing that a great many of them can not actually exist simultaneously. Although, I must admit that theistic faith in a god is usually not this absurd (though related beliefs can definitely be), because special pleading is not necessarily committing a logical contradiction.
<< prevnext >>
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
Login @ The VG Press
Username:
Password:
Remember me?