Religulous

[cardgame]

The point is that when someone yells "in the name of Allah die!!!" running at you with a sword, chances are they are killing in the name of religion. When someone yells "he is a traitor and needs to be executed for daring to dissent against our communist state" at you, chances are they are killing in the name of communism, regardless of whether they're atheist or not, and whether you're Christian or not.

This is basically what I've been trying to say since page 7

 

[Defiant47]

You better not let Ecofarm see that .

The point is that when someone yells "in the name of Allah die!!!" running at you with a sword, chances are they are killing in the name of religion. When someone yells "he is a traitor and needs to be executed for daring to dissent against our communist state" at you, chances are they are killing in the name of communism, regardless of whether they're atheist or not, and whether you're Christian or not.

Here we go again, Defiant47 calling religious people dumb and hopping on the superior high horse once again .

I'm a religious person and I did NOT gave up any inteligence (I have not even been to church in months anyway, darn job)

Just to make it clear, I don't claim that religious people are unintelligent. I claim that the act of belief in a religion is unintelligent. If Stephen Hawking liked to randomly stab his eye every now and then "just because" (a stupid act), would you say he is unintelligent? Or would you say he is an intelligent man committing one unintelligent act?

 

[GenMarshall]

Cardgame, that statement does not need fixing. I am not hopping on a high superior horse and saying "is too" . Do you have anything better to do than annoy me? I've done nothing to you and yet you attack me for no reason.

 

[aelf]

Believe without, or even in spite of, proof.
Belief in something when it is illogical to do so.
The anti-thesis of logic.

What if I told you your definition of faith is terribly myopic? Irrational belief =/= faith.

And you talk as if there's proof that God doesn't exist. Is there?

Example 1:
Does it require faith to drive my car? I don't know that the other drivers are licensed or safe.

Answer 1:
No. This is a calculated risk. The expected value of me driving my car is much higher than me not driving my car. This is because I have much to lose from not driving my car, and the chances of a catastrophe happening are sufficiently small, such that I should continue living my life as it is.

So what makes you think that a calculated probability is not behind faith?

Example 2:
Does it require faith to believe in the Christian God? We don't have proof of its existence.

Answer 2:
Yes. The story of the Christian God involves magical happenings that have not been recorded in present times. Things such as virgin births, miraculous transformations, and unexplained resurrections are not happenstance. They are so extreme that it would require quite a bit of proof before it would be logical to believe in their existence. I.e. reading it in a book is not enough, maybe not even seeing it is enough; you'd need a lot of solid proof before you could believe it.

A lot of things are pretty fantastic to people unaccustomed to such modes of thinking. A lot of stuff in astrophysics probably sounds quite fantastic to the average guy. Why would he believe them? Are there irrefutable proofs? Not necessarily. Some of them remain probable hypotheses. So why are they believed?

Some people have argued that there's more evidence for those than for religious claims. That might be true. But are most people who believe them sufficiently acquainted with the evidence to critically analyse it anyway? Belief structures in everyday (rational) life aren't constructed on empirical evidence alone. The fact that there's probably more evidence that makes scientific hypotheses probable still doesn't mean that faith is necessarily irrational.

Furthermore, the belief also includes what will happen once we die. We have no proof of that. To believe it unequivocally requires faith.

Really? How do you ever know anything that hasn't happened yet then?

Likewise, the expected value of belief and logical belief is not valid here, since that would be invoking Pascal's Wager, something easily disproved.

Go on, disprove it. I just want to see if you really know what you're talking about.

If you're still unsure whether belief in the Christian God requires faith, don't take it from me, take it from Christians. Ask them whether belief in God absolutely necessitates faith, and most of them will say yes.

Because most of them don't know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not surprised at all.

Example 3:
Does belief in the Muslim God require faith? We don't have proof of its existence.

Answer 3:
Once again, yes. Specific far-fetched occurrences to be believed without sufficient proof of their validity requires faith.

Etc...

Do you even know what are their articles of faith? It seems that you're just talking out of your arse.

 

[GenMarshall]

The point is that when someone yells "in the name of Allah die!!!" running at you with a sword, chances are they are killing in the name of religion. When someone yells "he is a traitor and needs to be executed for daring to dissent against our communist state" at you, chances are they are killing in the name of communism, regardless of whether they're atheist or not, and whether you're Christian or not.

It's still atheists persecuting Christians in soviet Russia. It's rather pointless to convince you of that these godless commies killed in the name of Atheism. So we'll leave it that we both disagree on that topic and move on.

Just to make it clear, I don't claim that religious people are unintelligent. I claim that the act of belief in a religion is unintelligent. If Stephen Hawking liked to randomly stab his eye every now and then "just because" (a stupid act), would you say he is unintelligent? Or would you say he is an intelligent man committing one unintelligent act?

Sorry, but the act of a belief in a religion is NOT unintelligent. No matter how mytopic your views on religious people are. Religious peope can be intelligent as well and not abandon logic and intelligence.

 

[Defiant47]

What if I told you your definition of faith is terrible myopic? Irrational belief =/= faith.

The dictionary definition usually take it. I just wanted to expand on that.

You talk as if there's proof that God doesn't exist. Is there?

There is proof. Just insufficient proof or incorrectly interpreted proof. I could say the fact that I'm alive is proof of God. That doesn't make my assertion true, though.

So what makes you think that a calculated probability is not behind faith?

Because usually it is not. Very few people believe "just in case", and in fact it's nigh-impossible to believe as such because the faith necessary is similar to giving up your entire person. If you ask any religious person, belief in their God requires more than "just in case, I'll believe in your God".

A lot of things are pretty fantastic to people unaccustomed to such modes of thinking. A lot of stuff in astrophysics probably sounds quite fantastic to the average guy. Why would he believe them? Are there irrefutable proofs? Not necessarily. Some of them remain probable hypotheses. So why are they believed?

Likewise, I believe in the story of Sparta. Curious that it is just about as old as the story of Jesus, but I don't believe the story of Jesus. Now why is that, Defiant?

The story of Sparta does not create consequences. If I'm wrong, then it doesn't really matter that I got a historical occurrence that will never affect me incorrect. The story of the Bible is different.

Some people have argued that there's more evidence for those than for religious claims. That might be true. But are most people who believe them sufficiently acquainted with the evidence to critically analyse it anyway? Belief structures in everyday (rational) life aren't constructed on empirical evidence alone. The fact that there's probably more evidence that makes scientific hypotheses probable still doesn't mean that faith is necessarily irrational.

Belief in scientific hypotheses requires a calculated belief in society. If you don't believe that the entire society and all of the world's scientists are plotting a conspiracy to make you believe that water freezes at 0 degrees and not -10, then you should believe that water freezes at 0 degrees. This is because there is proof and evidence of this.

Now wait a second, scientists claim water freezes at 0 degrees and you believe them. What about priests claiming God exists? The ability to reproduce conclusions. If I truly care about knowing whether water freezes at 0 degrees or not, I can do the experiments myself.

Chances are, if someone claimed "God exists and you might go to hell", I won't just say "ah, it's probably right and not a conspiracy". It's important enough that I would seek out to reach the same conclusions.

Now, to be fair, fairly complex conclusions and theorems, I don't necessarily take at face value. I accept it's so complex that I'll never be able to rationalize it myself, and be slightly uncertain about it. It won't affect me much either way, though.

Really? How do you ever know anything that hasn't happened yet then?

When you give me evidence or proof of the afterlife, I'll think about it.

For now, given the fact that the sun has risen every day, and that given our knowledge of physics we can estimate that the sun will rise again, I can comfortably say that the sun will rise.

Go on, disprove it. I just want to see if you really know what you're talking about.

Having me do all the work, eh?

First, we analyze where did this God come from anyways? I mean, at the very core. Did it come from a book? Then I could write a book myself to create a new God. Is it because everyone believe in it? Then I could get a bunch of people to believe in my new God.

Basically, we have to look at where this God supposition came from, and then realize we can create our own God. Let's invent a God "Pascal" that will punish you eternally if you don't believe in It and reward you eternally if you do believe in It. It would be worth the calculated risk to believe in this God, because you have nothing to lose if you're wrong. This God has a book, it has a guy that did some magic tricks, and it has followers (giving me enough time, I could conjure this up).

Let's invent another God "Anti-Pascal" that will punish you eternally if you believe in any God including it, and reward you eternally if you don't believe in any God whatsoever. It would be worth the calculated risk to not believe in any Gods, because you have nothing to life if you're wrong. This God has a book, magic tricks, etc.

And such, Pascal's Wager becomes useless. The trick is to think "where did God *really* come from?". Chances are everyone will be able to think of a God that was manufactured. Even Christians can see that the Hindu Gods are not real, they're just manufactured. If you can apply Pascal's Wager to the Hindu Gods then, you can subsequently create an anti-pascal God and come to the same conclusion you should have expected: Pascal's Wager solves nothing.

Because most of them don't know what the hell they're talking about. I'm not surprised at all.

If we're not talking mainstream Christianity, please say so. If you have some weird religion that does not use faith and does not affect people, then it's probably not such an intellectual sin, but still useless.

Do you even know what are their articles of faith? It seems that you're just talking out of your arse.

Yes, please pardon me for not spending time writing the articles of faith for each and every religion.

 

[cardgame]

It's still atheists persecuting Christians in soviet Russia. It's rather pointless to convince you of that these godless commies killed in the name of Atheism. So we'll leave it that we both disagree on that topic and move on.

OK, but hold on a second; If I, an atheist, shot a christian because he wouldn't stop stealing my wifi, is this murder "an atheist persecuting a christian"? Because I would seriously like to know where you get the logic for this argument from.

 

[Bill3000]

Believe without, or even in spite of, proof.
Belief in something when it is illogical to do so.
The anti-thesis of logic.

That's not what religious faith is. Sorry. Look in Ask a Theologian if you want to know what it is.

 

[cardgame]

That's not what religious faith is. Sorry. Look in Ask a Theologian if you want to know what it is.

You asked what faith was, not religious faith. He told you what faith was.

 

[Bill3000]

You asked what faith was, not religious faith. He told you what faith was.

Actually, I didn't ask anything.

 

[Defiant47]

That's not what religious faith is. Sorry. Look in Ask a Theologian if you want to know what it is.

My mistake. I didn't know there's actually reproducible and solid proof of God's existence. Logically, I'm going to become religious now.

 

[aelf]

The dictionary definition usually take it. I just wanted to expand on that.

Let's look at what wiki says:

Faith is often used in a religious context, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality, or else in a Supreme Divine Being or and said being's role in the order of transcendent, spiritual things. In a religious context, the actual meaning of the word "faith" is very commonly misconstrued, mostly by those who call themselves faithful and very commonly even by their opponents.

These words indisputably refer to the requirement of solid and logical inferences for the foundation of a real and acceptable faith, relatively speaking. Conversely, a "believer" that does not have logical, solid, and trustworthy references on which to base their "faith" has fallen into mere credulity and fideism. Many are surprised to see that the Bible itself actually condemns illogical, unfounded credulity ("A simple man believes every word he hears; a clever man understands the need for proof").

So, what do you say?

There is proof. Just insufficient proof or incorrectly interpreted proof. I could say the fact that I'm alive is proof of God. That doesn't make my assertion true, though.

So?

Because usually it is not. Very few people believe "just in case", and in fact it's nigh-impossible to believe as such because the faith necessary is similar to giving up your entire person. If you ask any religious person, belief in their God requires more than "just in case, I'll believe in your God".

I didn't say that it was a "just in case" thing. I said that it may very well be based on the reasonable probability that it's true.

Likewise, I believe in the story of Sparta. Curious that it is just about as old as the story of Jesus, but I don't believe the story of Jesus. Now why is that, Defiant?

The story of Sparta does not create consequences. If I'm wrong, then it doesn't really matter that I got a historical occurrence that will never affect me incorrect. The story of the Bible is different.

You're reaching. Whether or not it has consequence is not relevant to whether you think something is probably true or not.

Belief in scientific hypotheses requires a calculated belief in society. If you don't believe that the entire society and all of the world's scientists are plotting a conspiracy to make you believe that water freezes at 0 degrees and not -10, then you should believe that water freezes at 0 degrees. This is because there is proof and evidence of this.

Now wait a second, scientists claim water freezes at 0 degrees and you believe them. What about priests claiming God exists? The ability to reproduce conclusions. If I truly care about knowing whether water freezes at 0 degrees or not, I can do the experiments myself.

This is incoherent. It's easy enough to be directly acquainted with evidence of water's melting and boiling points. Is that the same for more complex theories? So, in general, is there actually a personal assessment of the given evidence or just trust in the scientific community based on the probability that they're right?

And a believer could say that nothing's stopping you from getting to know God yourself to find your proof.

When you give me evidence or proof of the afterlife, I'll think about it.

For now, given the fact that the sun has risen every day, and that given our knowledge of physics we can estimate that the sun will rise again, I can comfortably say that the sun will rise.

Funnily enough, some believers extrapolate the afterlife from our understanding of how things are in the present world.

Having me do all the work, eh?

First, we analyze where did this God come from anyways? I mean, at the very core. Did it come from a book? Then I could write a book myself to create a new God. Is it because everyone believe in it? Then I could get a bunch of people to believe in my new God.

Basically, we have to look at where this God supposition came from, and then realize we can create our own God. Let's invent a God "Pascal" that will punish you eternally if you don't believe in It and reward you eternally if you do believe in It. It would be worth the calculated risk to believe in this God, because you have nothing to lose if you're wrong. This God has a book, it has a guy that did some magic tricks, and it has followers (giving me enough time, I could conjure this up).

Let's invent another God "Anti-Pascal" that will punish you eternally if you believe in any God including it, and reward you eternally if you don't believe in any God whatsoever. It would be worth the calculated risk to not believe in any Gods, because you have nothing to life if you're wrong. This God has a book, magic tricks, etc.

And such, Pascal's Wager becomes useless. The trick is to think "where did God *really* come from?". Chances are everyone will be able to think of a God that was manufactured. Even Christians can see that the Hindu Gods are not real, they're just manufactured. If you can apply Pascal's Wager to the Hindu Gods then, you can subsequently create an anti-pascal God and come to the same conclusion you should have expected: Pascal's Wager solves nothing.

I've never heard such a criticism of the Pascal Wager. There's no reason to imagine that there's a God "that will punish you eternally if you believe in any God including it, and reward you eternally if you don't believe in any God whatsoever." This is very unimpressive.

If we're not talking mainstream Christianity, please say so. If you have some weird religion that does not use faith and does not affect people, then it's probably not such an intellectual sin, but still useless.

What the heck is "mainstream Christianity"?

All I'm saying is there are informed Christians who know where they stand and ignorant Christians who chalk everything up to fideist faith and fervour.

Yes, please pardon me for not spending time writing the articles of faith for each and every religion.

Then you can never hope to criticise them without sounding like an idiot.

 

[Bill3000]

My mistake. I didn't know there's actually reproducible and solid proof of God's existence. Logically, I'm going to become religious now.

No, I'm saying that's not what religious faith is. Your definition of faith is wrong.

 

[cardgame]

No, I'm saying that's not what religious faith is. Your definition of faith is wrong.

Perhaps your definition is wrong.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

belief that is not based on proof

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

 

[aelf]

Why don't you pop that into the "Ask a Theologian" thread?

 

[GenMarshall]

Why don't you pop that into the "Ask a Theologian" thread?

They can't, they want to deconvert people into atheism in the name of atheism by use of silly logic.

 

[cardgame]

lolwut

 

[Annex]

This is basically what I've been trying to say since page 7

Why? Its not even that good of an argument.

 

[Defiant47]

Let's look at what wiki says:

So, what do you say?

I don't care what type of faith definition they have. The fit into my given definition of faith, and that definition is a bad thing.

So?

So belief in God requires faith.

I didn't say that it was a "just in case" thing. I said that it may very well be based on the reasonable probability that it's true.

Now you're reaching. You're going to try to show that there's a reasonable probability that a specific God is true? I'm curious to see this.

You're reaching. Whether or not it has consequence is not relevant to whether you think something is probably true or not.

Not exactly. Whether or not it has consequence is not relevant to whether you think something is probably true or not, but it is relevant to whether you believe it or not.

You tell me:
"Back in 4000B.C., people wore sandals! Can you believe that??"
And I will believe you. I have no proof other than your word, but I'm like "meh, he's probably not trying to mess with me".

You tell me:
"Back in 4000B.C., people wore sandals! Am I right or wrong? If you don't answer correctly, I'll shoot you."
Then I'll be like "oh no, I gotta research this and know for sure".

This is incoherent. It's easy enough to be directly acquainted with evidence of water's melting and boiling points. Is that the same for more complex theories? So, in general, is there actually a personal assessment of the given evidence or just trust in the scientific community based on the probability that they're right?

Yes, it's the same if you're willing to spend time on it and research it. The fact is that you can verify these things if need be, like if you were building a safety device and all of a sudden you needed to be sure of these theories. Until then, you can safely believe these theories, without much impact on your person if you're wrong.

The probability is very good given their methodologies and verifications, and the dangers are minimal.

And a believer could say that nothing's stopping you from getting to know God yourself to find your proof.

The same could be said about any belief; rational or irrational.

Funnily enough, some believers extrapolate the afterlife from our understanding of how things are in the present world.

Really? I think most of them extrapolate it from religious texts and leaders. I.e. a book told me, or a priest told me. Corollary: society is made up of many individuals who also believe this, and it's usually a social taboo to contradict it in social engagements.

I've never heard such a criticism of the Pascal Wager. There's no reason to imagine that there's a God "that will punish you eternally if you believe in any God including it, and reward you eternally if you don't believe in any God whatsoever." This is very unimpressive.

And there's a reason to imagine that there's a God that will punish you eternally if you believe in it? You are very unimpressive.

What the heck is "mainstream Christianity"?

"a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence"

All I'm saying is there are informed Christians who know where they stand and ignorant Christians who chalk everything up to fideist faith and fervour.

Even informed Christians believe in Jesus, which requires a significant leap of faith.

Then you can never hope to criticise them without sounding like an idiot.

Okay. Then every time I will criticize them, I will write the entire articles of every faith, just because. Can't risk sounding like an idiot now, can I? You make no sense.

 

[Defiant47]

No, I'm saying that's not what religious faith is. Your definition of faith is wrong.

Let's suppose it is wrong (though as cardgame showed it isn't). Let's call my definition faith2.

Religious belief requires faith2. Faith2 is bad because then you could choose to believe the most ridiculous of assertions if you just apply faith2.

Can we continue now?