The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 31, 2023 10:17:49 GMT
Making sense doesn't necessarily correlate with emotional experience. js Yeah that's a fair point. Maybe 'feels right' rather than 'makes sense' would be a better phrase to convey what I mean.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 31, 2023 10:29:17 GMT
But it’s not an answer that most theists would ever give, and it is very much an anti-Christian answer I don't think it needs to be seen as such though. It's more an acknowledgement that Christianity is (and, in my opinion, ought to be) primarily based on a leap of faith rather than being some inarguable truth that must be thrust upon others; and accepting that various religions agree on a lot of key aspects which seems quite obvious to me. For the record, I'm not a Christian. More an agnostic who thinks faith can be valid for some. I don't always agree with Clusium, but she generally strikes me as quite live-and-let-live when it comes to other faiths (or lack thereof).
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Oct 31, 2023 11:52:54 GMT
But it’s not an answer that most theists would ever give, and it is very much an anti-Christian answer I don't think it needs to be seen as such though. It's more an acknowledgement that Christianity is (and, in my opinion, ought to be) primarily based on a leap of faith rather than being some inarguable truth that must be thrust upon others; and accepting that various religions agree on a lot of key aspects which seems quite obvious to me. For the record, I'm not a Christian. More an agnostic who thinks faith can be valid for some. I don't always agree with Clusium, but she generally strikes me as quite live-and-let-live when it comes to other faiths (or lack thereof).Correct. I respect other people's religious beliefs, & in fact, I have always been fascinated with world religions.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Oct 31, 2023 11:55:52 GMT
I don't think there is such an objective test. I think it comes down to what makes most sense to the person in question and that's going to be influenced by a lot of things, including the culture they were brought up in. In that respect there's no real difference to what the OP said - people generally stick with the religion they were brought up in. But if one sees other religions as valid attempts at grasping the truth, they'd probably be less judgmental and more accommodating of them than if they saw them simply as false. Acknowledging how much our own beliefs are shaped by culture and emotion rather than investigation helps in that respect too. So for me, a healthy (or at least, health ier) attitude to religion would be something like: 'I'm a Christian. Christianity make sense to me and gives my life some degree of fulfilment. I acknowledge my Christianity is strongly influenced by the culture I was brought up in. Other religions make less sense to me and don't do anything for me on an emotional level, but I acknowledge that is not true of others with a different cultural background to myself and we actually agree on many metaphysical concepts.' Okay, I have to say that ^this is a very good answer. Not only is it objectively the only correct answer, but it also acknowledges a certain level of fallacious reasoning (appealing to emotion rather than logic), is intellectually honest, and doesn’t reek of arrogance or righteous condemnation. But that’s the problem with the answer! This is the type of answer that an otherwise rational person might give to an inquiry about that person’s belief system (even if they recognize it to be not rationally justified universally). But it’s not an answer that most theists would ever give, and it is very much an anti-Christian answer, which is why most Christians wouldn’t answer this way. In fact, the only branch of Christianity (that I can think of) who would approve of this answer doctrinally would be Unitarian Universalists. And that’s a branch that is largely disowned by mainstream Christianity. The reason I ask these types of questions (that I already know the correct answer to) is to see whether any theist will actually respond with that answer. It’s kind of a gotcha question meant to demonstrate the absurdity of most claims in monotheistic religion, Christianity specifically. You happened to be among the few who ever passes this test. But, your answer still helps to demonstrate that specific claims of mainstream Christianity are not rational. And the fact that clusium actually “liked” your answer is ironic in the saddest sense. Pray tell, how my liking The Lost One's responses ironic in the saddest sense, from your POV? I think her responses are just & reasonable. Don't you?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 2, 2023 8:56:15 GMT
Making sense doesn't necessarily correlate with emotional experience. js Yeah that's a fair point. Maybe 'feels right' rather than 'makes sense' would be a better phrase to convey what I mean. Why can't it just make sense?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Nov 2, 2023 18:02:39 GMT
Yeah that's a fair point. Maybe 'feels right' rather than 'makes sense' would be a better phrase to convey what I mean. Why can't it just make sense? To me, things only “feel right” when they make sense.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 3, 2023 14:54:22 GMT
Yeah that's a fair point. Maybe 'feels right' rather than 'makes sense' would be a better phrase to convey what I mean. Why can't it just make sense? I think there needs to be an emotional component. Someone might in theory accept the existence of God on a purely intellectual basis but if the idea of God doesn't mean something to them, they're unlikely to be religious as such.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 4, 2023 4:26:46 GMT
Why can't it just make sense? I think there needs to be an emotional component. Someone might in theory accept the existence of God on a purely intellectual basis but if the idea of God doesn't mean something to them, they're unlikely to be religious as such. I've been told that if one believes in God, they're automatically religious by default.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 4, 2023 10:02:32 GMT
I've been told that if one believes in God, they're automatically religious by default. I reckon there's a difference between believing God exists and believing in God. I believe Rishi Sunak exists but I wouldn't say I believe in him - that would require some sort of devotional faith that he doesn't inspire in me. To quote Terry Pratchett: However, I don't actually think there are many people who believe God exists without having that devotional attitude. People like William Lane Craig make rationalistic arguments for the existence of God, appealling strictly to logic and empiricism with no attempt to bring in faith or emotion. His arguments are probably about as strong as such arguments can be but they never seem to convince atheists, instead they seem to be aimed more at tackling doubts of theists. Even Craig himself wasn't convinced by rational argument but by a personal religious experience. My theory is in order to be convinced God exists, you need to want him to.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 4, 2023 12:51:23 GMT
Well expect for the one i belive in of course. The mindset of the vast majority of religious people. There is no proof that any one religion is any more true than other religion, when the religion you belong to are in the vast majority of cases based on where in the world you are born, and what culture you grew up in. And of course the most important reason why a person is the religion he or she is, its because its the religion of the family he or she grew up in. This is a fact religions people will deny. And i wrote majority not all
I think I explained this to you before. Religion of necessity deals with abstractions, things you are failing to understand. Religion cannot be taken literally because it deals with abstractions. It deals with things outside common experience. If you and another person have the common experience of the color green, then you may discuss that color with that person literally. If the other person has been blind from before birth and has never seen any color at all including green, it is not possible to discuss color literally. You must use allegory, symbolism, less direct or more "poetic" language. Try it. Describe green to a blind person.
Notice that one attempt to describe green to a blind person might be different than another person's attempt. An idiot might then assume one attempt is "false." Please do not be that idiot.
Mentally retarded atheists often find it amusing to challenge the various religious writings for consistency. They are atheists because they cannot read above a disgustingly rudimentary level. and at that level "inconsistencies" appear.
2 Corinthians 3:6 "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
That is an injunction against taking the scriptures too literally.
Another way the scriptures defy be taken literally is the "Trinity." Maybe clusium has the skill to explain that in way that a child of five can understand, but most people cannot.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 4, 2023 20:57:04 GMT
I explained this to you before. Religion of necessity deals with abstractions, things you are failing to understand. Religion cannot be taken literally because it deals with abstractions. It deals with things outside common experience. What is religious fundamentalism in simple terms? Religious fundamentalism is the approach of those religious groups that look for the literal interpretation of original religious texts or books believing that teachings obtained from this kind of reading must be used in all social, economic, and political aspects. I hope that helps. In a point raised whenever you use this analogy, it fails since it ought to be obvious that it is impossible to ascertain what a blind person is thinking of when they are asked to consider "green". Thus nothing you claim is verifiable or falsifiable - making it meaningless.
Which implies anothers' attempt is true. See how it works?
As usual, I am sure we are all grateful for Arlon's supreme intelligence and guidance in all these matters... Are you saying that there are no inconsistencies in religious writings? (Even when they, er, contradict each other about who created us all?) In which case. why should one take that injunction itself literally? Or the promises of Jesus come to that? Or the existence of God? This is something at least I suspect many would agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 5, 2023 1:57:52 GMT
I explained this to you before. Religion of necessity deals with abstractions, things you are failing to understand. Religion cannot be taken literally because it deals with abstractions. It deals with things outside common experience. What is religious fundamentalism in simple terms? Religious fundamentalism is the approach of those religious groups that look for the literal interpretation of original religious texts or books believing that teachings obtained from this kind of reading must be used in all social, economic, and political aspects. I hope that helps. In a point raised whenever you use this analogy, it fails since it ought to be obvious that it is impossible to ascertain what a blind person is thinking of when they are asked to consider "green". Thus nothing you claim is verifiable or falsifiable - making it meaningless. Which implies anothers' attempt is true. See how it works? As usual, I am sure we are all grateful for Arlon's supreme intelligence and guidance in all these matters... Are you saying that there are no inconsistencies in religious writings? (Even when they, er, contradict each other about who created us all?) In which case. why should one take that injunction itself literally? Or the promises of Jesus come to that? Or the existence of God? This is something at least I suspect many would agree with.
"What is religious fundamentalism in simple terms?" It is what a religious "fundamentalist" says it is, not what you say it is. The same goes for "religious" people who read deeper meanings in scriptures. They are also what they say they are, not what you say they are. The "religious fundamentalist" such as you describe has often found himself the problem in society because he does take literally what should not be. There are rather noticeable errors of "context." Because I have formal schooling in surveys I can sometimes better guess what people "really" are. Nevertheless in any debate of the merits of "religion" neither you nor I may assume our definitions of religion apply to others. Yet you keep trying to write definitions as if you are the arbiter of them. You most certainly have not the slightest clue. "Thus nothing you claim is verifiable or falsifiable - making it meaningless." I think it would be wonderful if every fact ever were available to every person ever. It is rather obvious though that many facts escape the perception of many individuals. Just because you cannot see it, is no indication in the slightest it is "meaningless." It might be meaningless to you, but you are not the arbiter of meaning. You are "opinionated" in the most reprehensible way. Could you please stop that? I suspect the fact that you have not been apprised of any scriptural truths has hurt your feelings. But no, they are not readily available from mere text alone for anyone, including me. They require some degree of something like "revelation" or spiritual guidance. To put it simply, if the "Holy Spirit" doesn't tell you what the Bible means, then you do not know what the Bible means. That is who I say I am, a religious person who actually reads as far as I can and yet have enough sense to stop where I cannot read.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 6, 2023 21:47:32 GMT
"What is religious fundamentalism in simple terms?" It is what a religious "fundamentalist" says it is, not what you say it is. The same goes for "religious" people who read deeper meanings in scriptures. They are also what they say they are, not what you say they are. I agree. I think it is best practice to take what the religious say at face value. One example of fundamentalism among Christians is the opposition to the teaching of evolution in American schools. Evolution contradicts the story of the creation found in the Book of Genesis, and fundamentalist Christians believe that teaching evolution undermines their religious values. Their views and reasoning are easy to find. Moreover a recent Gallup survey has found that, although the percentage is decreasing, one in four Americans (24%) believe the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word. news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx As someone who thinks the earth was literally created by a deliberate supernatural (presumably out of nothing) and on earlier threads have argued against the modern evolutionary synthesis, I seem to remember, I am sure you sympathise. QED Feel free to offer another definition of fundamentalism then, one without a characteristic of literalness involved in their belief system? Evasion will be noted. Feel free to actually explain why something asserted without chance of verification or which is unfalsifiable is objectively meaningful. The falsification principle holds that a statement is only cognitively meaningful if it can be proven false. The only claims which are not just true but meaningful, are those claims which can be empirically verified or falsified. (I am aware that there is the old criticism that verificationism and falsificationism are principles which have to be assumed in order for them to work. One possible response to this critique could be that these are principles which are not intended to justify themselves. These principles act more like axioms which are meant to explain the nature of how things work. There are other axioms, but this seem reasonable to me ... a subjective truth if you like.) I hope that helps. Another word would be, like, 'credulity'. This appears to be a circular argument. If the Holy Spirit exists please have it manifest itself to me and I shall tell it the same. Good news. Can you stop now?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 7, 2023 1:14:41 GMT
I've been told that if one believes in God, they're automatically religious by default. I reckon there's a difference between believing God exists and believing in God. I believe Rishi Sunak exists but I wouldn't say I believe in him - that would require some sort of devotional faith that he doesn't inspire in me. To quote Terry Pratchett: However, I don't actually think there are many people who believe God exists without having that devotional attitude. People like William Lane Craig make rationalistic arguments for the existence of God, appealling strictly to logic and empiricism with no attempt to bring in faith or emotion. His arguments are probably about as strong as such arguments can be but they never seem to convince atheists, instead they seem to be aimed more at tackling doubts of theists. Even Craig himself wasn't convinced by rational argument but by a personal religious experience. My theory is in order to be convinced God exists, you need to want him to. I think asking if someone believes in God is virtually always referring to its existence. However, that's not always the case when someone professes their belief in God because for some theists, God's existence is a given and the issue is whether or not he should be trusted. As you say, one can believe in somebody without questioning their existence. Maybe Craig should realize that without doubt, it isn't faith. And for what it's worth, I've never had a personal religious experience, nor does my belief in God comfort me. If I could choose what I believe, I'd still be an atheist.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 7, 2023 9:41:00 GMT
Maybe Craig should realize that without doubt, it isn't faith. Definitely. Yeah, I don't think it's a conscious choice for anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 7, 2023 20:33:36 GMT
Maybe Craig should realize that without doubt, it isn't faith. Definitely. Yeah, I don't think it's a conscious choice for anyone. If you want to believe, you'll interpret virtually everything as support for it. I remember a scene from Joan of Arcadia in which Mary Steenburgen is talking to a priest about her concern that God was visiting her in her dreams. She asked him straight up if it was God, and he responded by asking her if she wanted it to be. She scoffed and said, "So that's all it takes?" The priest replied, "No. That's where it starts." Credulity indeed. On the other side of that coin, consider CS Lewis, who called himself a "reluctant convert." When his wife died, he wrote A Grief Observed, in which he wrote: There are indeed many theists who believe simply because they want to, but for an atheist to project credulity onto every one he talks to is to be just as willfully biased.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 8, 2023 12:24:38 GMT
for an atheist to project credulity onto every one he talks to is to be just as willfully biased. Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him James 1: 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 2 Corinthians 5:7 We live by faith, not by sight credulity 1:1 a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 8, 2023 21:33:00 GMT
for an atheist to project credulity onto every one he talks to is to be just as willfully biased. Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him James 1: 6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 2 Corinthians 5:7 We live by faith, not by sight credulity 1:1 a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true. Thanks for the underscore.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 9, 2023 10:55:00 GMT
There are indeed many theists who believe simply because they want to, but for an atheist to project credulity onto every one he talks to is to be just as willfully biased. Yeah, I think 'credulity' is an overly negative spin on it. I think of it more as William James' 'will to believe'. CS Lewis does make a fair point that believing in God causes dilemmas that an atheist doesn't need to worry about. I think he's right to say people don't just believe because it's consoling. However, Lewis does argue that humans have a natural longing for the transcendent - in fact he takes this as a given in one of his most famous arguments for the existence of God. While he's right that this longing is more than a simple need for consolation, it does suggest there is a non-rational emotional element for belief in God.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Nov 9, 2023 18:35:36 GMT
Religion cannot be taken literally because it deals with abstractions. In other words, there are neither facts nor evidence to back it up. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS. Ah, the Donald Trump approach: Rather than present a good rebuttal, simply insult those with an opposing view.
Religion isn't about beliefs; religion is about power, and mind control. (also $$$ for people like Kenneth Copeland)
|
|