Religulous

[Bill3000]

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?

Cardgame didn't show anything other than his kiddie atheism, and your definition is wrong because the type of faith you are talking about (fideism) is a heresy within Catholicism and certainly not a requirement for religious belief. For example, it's entirely possible to be religious and have a religious experience, which is evidence for religious belief for a single person.

 

[Defiant47]

Cardgame didn't show anything other than his kiddie atheism, and your definition is wrong because the type of faith you are talking about is a heresy.

Answer me this:

Do Christians (to pick a religion) exercise faith2 or not?

 

[Bill3000]

Answer me this:

Do Christians (to pick a religion) exercise faith2 or not?

The "antithesis of logic"? Assuming you're not a fideist Christian, no.

 

[Defiant47]

The "antithesis of logic"? Assuming you're not a fideist Christian, no.

"Believe without, even in spite of, proof."
(which technically is the antithesis of logic)

The others were simply embellishments to elaborate.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well this is getting a whole lot of nowhere.

 

[Bill3000]

"Believe without, even in spite of, proof."
(which technically is the antithesis of logic)

That's not the antithesis of logic. Hell, it's incredibly important in logic, if you remove "even in spite of". They're called axioms.

But no, Christians don't have a faith in which they believe "in spite of" proof that their religion is false.

With that said:

A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps.

 

[GoodGame]

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.

Seems to me that is like reasoning a posteri, in way that seems blatantly false to me. To accept/deny a story simply because of it's 20th C. influence is kind of silly, and not particularly logical. Either events could be true or false, with only the story to be examined and denied/supported by presumably surviving data (e.g. artifacts, or other histories that mention the Spartans, Thermopylae, Jesus of Nazareth, etc..). And the examination can go further to validate/disproof the authenticity of data that survives, ad nausem.

In truth the past does affect us, at least by providing a culture, so really your crucible fails, since even the story of Sparta has been told and historicized many times since. It's already had a cultural impact that by butterfly wings still affects you at least minimally.

And any way how is "the story of the bible different"? I presume you mean that such retelling of the story might be manipulated over time by the teller, but easily that suspicion applies to anything we label as historical.

But anyway this thread is going wildly onto a tangent about a critical analysis of history, and not really being about Religulous the movie.

 

[Defiant47]

Well this is getting a whole lot of nowhere.

On the contrary. One of the main reasons I put my beliefs on display such that they can be challenged by anyone is so that I can defend them to my satisfaction and thus assure myself that I am correct (or adjust accordingly).

On the Internet, very rarely will you actually change the other person's mind. You're there to either change someone in the audience's mind (though you will probably never know, and thus the second reason), or to show yourself that the opposition's arguments are inadequate for you.

And at the very least, both sides will enjoy the debate. I certainly do, else I wouldn't come back.

 

[Defiant47]

That's not the antithesis of logic. Hell, it's incredibly important in logic, if you remove "even in spite of". They're called axioms.

But no, Christians don't have a faith in which they believe "in spite of" proof that their religion is false.

OK, I am done with you. Feel free to respond to me again when you stop misinterpreting me.

Hint: "Believe without, even in spite of, proof" is an OR boolean.

Seems to me that is like reasoning a posteri, in way that seems blatantly false to me. To accept/deny a story simply because of it's 20th C. influence is kind of silly, and not particularly logical. Either events could be true or false, with only the story to be examined and denied/supported by presumably surviving data (e.g. artifacts, or other histories that mention the Spartans, Thermopylae, Jesus of Nazareth, etc..). And the examination can go further to validate/disproof the authenticity of data that survives, ad nausem.

In truth the past does affect us, at least by providing a culture, so really your crucible fails, since even the story of Sparta has been told and historicized many times since. It's already had a cultural impact that by butterfly wings still affects you at least minimally.

It was a minor method in which I was showing why I might believe Sparta but not Jesus. Current events don't dictate everything for belief, of course. But I'm not going to start listing all the methods.

And any way how is "the story of the bible different"? I presume you mean that such retelling of the story might be manipulated over time by the teller, but easily that suspicion applies to anything we label as historical.

It's different in that it has extraordinary claims. Do you believe the story of Sparta? Chances are things happened closely to that (if you eliminate the gods). Do you believe the story of Beowulf? Chances are there wasn't a guy who could breathe underwater and slay monsters whose fossils we've never encountered.

The ridiculous retelling just adds icing to the cake.

But anyway this thread is going wildly onto a tangent about a critical analysis of history, and not really being about Religulous the movie.

It's not that big of a tangent.

 

[GoodGame]

It's different in that it has extraordinary claims. Do you believe the story of Sparta? Chances are things happened closely to that (if you eliminate the gods). Do you believe the story of Beowulf? Chances are there wasn't a guy who could breathe underwater and slay monsters whose fossils we've never encountered.

The ridiculous retelling just adds icing to the cake.



It's not that big of a tangent.

What you don't realize is 300 is not the first retelling of Thermopylae. The history has persisted and been retransmitted, by generations of historians. I don't believe it. I examine it. It's purely analysis. E.g. If leonidas rose from the grave and there was a shroud that passed modern day dating and testing, then I'd probably take that story at face value; If the shroud failed, I wouldn't necessarily discount the story in entiriety but it's truthfullness would be suspect.

Also one must realize that possibly extraordinary things can happen in the past, not just the future; Assuming the past is an imprint of the present might have some validity, but it's purely an assumption in the end without observation. So again preferable not to believe, but rather analyze.

And on BS psychological arguement methods. I suggest sticking to strictly truthful ones. Otherwise one looks like a mad ranter, regardless of ideological camp. It's simply that Thermopylae's 300 and Jesus are stories, of varying degrees of credibility, that our culture has from its past and given to us as our inheiritance.

 

[Bill3000]

OK, I am done with you. Feel free to respond to me again when you stop misinterpreting me.

To the extent that there are beliefs taken for granted without proving it, this is done all the time. It's what axioms are, and axioms are very important to derive logical conclusions. They are important in academic studies such as math. You cannot prove the axiom of choice - you must take it for granted.

That's not religious faith though.

The idea that there is religious belief in which there is proof for that religious belief, but the belief exists independent of that proof, is patently absurd and to be frank I don't think a single person would honestly have a belief like that. If the Teleological argument was decisive and as a result God was a necessary creator of the Universe, and if there was decisive empirical evidence that the events of the Resurrection happened that any person could witness, you'd be a fool to not look at that evidence and strengthen your belief in the Christian God on that. No way it would be independent.

But, just like I said before, that's not religious faith.

 

[Dachs]

You do not need faith to use currency.

Ever taken an economics class before?

But anyway this thread is going wildly onto a tangent about a critical analysis of history, and not really being about Religulous the movie.

If this were about historiography it would have been over a long time ago.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

On the contrary.

I get all that, but it seems to me that the arguments are going around in circles now. Religion involves circular logic (God exists because he does) You deny that it is valid reasoning and I agree. Others think it is very valid and you won't convince them otherwise because A exists if A exists and you can't prove A doesn't exist.

We were in the semantics portion where you deftly dodged the part where religious people deny the definition of faith (Oh, have I been there) and used the term "faith2". Now we are into nitpicking sketchy historical accounts.

In the end, you're absolutely correct. Religion supports itself by not requiring logic, only repeating it's own assertions ad infinitum and referring to itself as proof. And that is why religion is completely consistent and cannot be debated, because it ignores the rules of logic and it can mean whatever your opponent says it means. He can argue it isn't faith, he can debate the meaning of facts, he can argue that it really happened and you can't prove that it didn't, he will point out the gaps in scientific knowledge, ignore the failings of religion throughout history, compare communist purges to mainstream atheism, compare all non-theism to atheism, argue for the psychological or perceived benefits of religion, completely ignore standard definitions of words, and so on... and since you can't ever prove him wrong, only that the entire edifice of religion is built upon a series of unprovable assumptions and ignores empirical evidence, you will stalemate one another for eternity.

To me, it seems strange to argue about what may or may not be inside an invisible magic box that can never be opened. Some say it's a Fire Breathing Leprechaun, other people say that it is endless nothingness, some people say it's something else. You won't know for sure at any point while you are alive, and while everyone has their own opinion, some opinions are very popular and some people get awfully ticked off if you challenge their opinion. As long as they don't use their theories about the contents of the magic box to make law, or call it scientific knowledge, or don't persecute people based on their belief or disbelief in the magic box, it makes no sense to get upset over it.

Zealotry on either side turns me off. I know a way we can settle this: why don't we all live a long full life in peace and harmony respecting one another's differences, and then we can die and find out the answer. Me personally? I think it's all the missing socks from the dryer. Or perhaps Schrödinger's Cat. Who knows. But either side claiming they know and getting all worked up over it...

 

[cardgame]

Cardgame didn't show anything other than his kiddie atheism,

So by providing links to two websites and quotes from three that eliminated your faith argument I am being a kiddie atheist?

 

[aelf]

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 basically you're insisting on your definition of faith? No wonder atheism is just like religious fanaticism in the hands of some ignorant clowns

So belief in God requires faith.

Don't follow.

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.

Plenty of people think so, and they have arguments to back it up that are tons more valid than the tomfoolery you're engaging in here. But as I'm essentially agnostic, I don't feel like getting into apologetics here, sorry.

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.

Huh? This statement is complete nonsense. So you think something is probably true but you don't believe it?

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".

Who's gonna shoot you?

I suppose what you're trying to describe is a situation where someone has reason to lie v.s. another situation where someone has no reason to. But if you determine that what is stated is probably not a lie, then the question is moot.

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.

So do you actually do that? If not, why do you believe them at all?

And as I said, if you're willing to spend time on it, you can come to your own conclusion whether there's reason to believe in God too. But, evidently, you haven't bothered to do any of that, since any respectable theologian would be able to bootstomp your childish arguments.

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

So, do you have any idea what the arguments for the existence of God are? All you're doing is repeating the "There's no proof that God exists!!!" line. It's extremely shallow and boring.

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.

Yes, really.

It doesn't matter what most people do. The fact that most atheists are like you doesn't mean that atheists are dumb, right?

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.

Why would a god punish you eternally if you believe in him/her? You are hilarious.

"a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence"

There's no such thing as "mainstream Christianity". What are you talking about? Catholicism? The charismatic movement? The evangelicals?

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

Not everyone makes the leap of faith.

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.

I make a lot of sense. Your general criticism isn't even very substantial. All you're doing is just repeating popular phrases and reasoning which are as stupid as a charismatic Christian's belief in faith healing and etc. If you want to get into criticising a religion specifically, you better know what the religion is really about. If not, well, you'll look like how you look now.

In the end, you're absolutely correct. Religion supports itself by not requiring logic, only repeating it's own assertions ad infinitum and referring to itself as proof.

Well, what can I say? You're wrong there.

 

[Bill3000]

So by providing links to two websites and quotes from three that eliminated your faith argument I am being a kiddie atheist?

A one-sentence dictionary definition a refutation does not make.

 

[cardgame]

Don't follow.

There is no proof for God or gods to exist, therefore the belief that a god or gods do exist is a belief not based on proof, ergo believing in such requires faith.

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

A one-sentence dictionary definition a refutation does not make.

Making up your own definition of faith doesn't really work here; when you're talking about faith in general, people tend to think of faith, not "bill's definition of faith".

 

[Bill3000]

There is no proof for God or gods to exist, therefore the belief that a god or gods do exist is a belief not based on proof, ergo believing in such requires faith.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Again, that's not what religious faith is. You can search the appropriate threads if you want to find out.

 

[aelf]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

Hey, did you read my wiki quote earlier? It's very easy to repeat some dumb definitions that are not necessarily true.

And, as I said, if you really want to test your wonderful definitions, why not post them in the "Ask a Theologian" thread, hmm? What's the matter? Too scared of being wrong?

 

[cardgame]

Again, that's not what religious faith is. You can search the appropriate threads if you want to find out.

Did you read this:

Making up your own definition of faith doesn't really work here; when you're talking about faith in general, people tend to think of faith, not "bill's definition of faith".

Would you settle for the BIBLE'S definition?

faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen