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.
Login @ The VG Press
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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?
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.
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.