|
Post by clusium on Nov 9, 2023 20:31:34 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)
Wrong. Religion is precisely about belief. Religion is a form of culture centred upon the worship Of God or gods. Yes, there are plenty of people who take advantage of religious belief, but, that is the very nature of human beings: To try to have power over others, in any way possible, & using religious belief is only just one example.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 10, 2023 20:34:55 GMT
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. An interesting point in relation to this is to be found in John 20:29 when Jesus talks to Thomas and, in effect, prefers the credulity of the many over the scepticism of the individual: 'Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” ' The implication is that those who are more credulous are blessed [an inner peace, an inner bliss, an inner happiness, an inward joy not produced nor affected by circumstance apparently] and so preferred; Poor Thomas, who did the natural thing and asked for evidence, is considered less praiseworthy or fortunate..
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 10, 2023 20:50:15 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'. I think it is important to say credulity does not necessarily mean, or imply gullibility. The observation here is that if one is willing to accept as true something inherently contradictory or ineffable with no objective evidence just because one is told to by its proponents,, what else can it be called but over willingness to believe?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 11, 2023 14:45:46 GMT
just because one is told to by its proponents I think if that's the only reason someone believed then they've probably been indoctrinated. I think though there are those whose leap of faith represents a genuine choice rather than something they were forced into by others.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 11, 2023 14:57:50 GMT
Thanks for the underscore. An interesting point in relation to this is to be found in John 20:29 when Jesus talks to Thomas and, in effect, prefers the credulity of the many over the scepticism of the individual: 'Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” ' The implication is that those who are more credulous are blessed [an inner peace, an inner bliss, an inner happiness, an inward joy not produced nor affected by circumstance apparently] and so preferred; Poor Thomas, who did the natural thing and asked for evidence, is considered less praiseworthy or fortunate.. Maybe though Thomas would be happier if he was willing to make the odd leap of faith. Not an exact analogy, but the person who trusts their spouse is faithful is probably happier than the one who checks their phone to make sure. Obviously that's a much smaller leap of faith but difference in degree aside, it's an example of where the person who wants more evidence is less happy.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 11, 2023 20:25:38 GMT
Maybe though Thomas would be happier if he was willing to make the odd leap of faith. Not Not an exact analogy, but the person who trusts their spouse is faithful is probably happier than the one who checks their phone to make sure. Obviously that's a much smaller leap of faith but difference in degree aside, it's an example of where the person who wants more evidence is less happy. There is no mention of how satisfied or happy Thomas was in the text, unless you just mean 'better off'? I would agree there are times when one might be better off not knowing (or putting their head into the sand it could be said). But if someone made an extraordinary claim, would not most people ask to be convinced by something more than their claim? In fact I venture to suggest that, away from the age-old mysteries of religion which for many, appears to have a free pass, virtually no body runs their life in this way.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 11, 2023 20:28:16 GMT
just because one is told to by its proponents I think if that's the only reason someone believed then they've probably been indoctrinated. I think though there are those whose leap of faith represents a genuine choice rather than something they were forced into by others. This still does not make them less credible in making their choice, no more than being biased towards something makes anyone necessarily wrong..
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 11, 2023 20:37:05 GMT
In fact I venture to suggest that, away from the age-old mysteries of religion which for many, appears to have a free pass, virtually no body runs their life in this way. Agreed (though I wouldn't say it's limited merely to traditional religion - new age ideas like manifesting seem to also inspire a lot of blind faith). Which is interesting, isn't it? What is it about religion that inspires leaps of faith of much greater degree than any other aspect of life? My own feeling is that it's because religion provides answers to existential dilemmas which simply can't be resolved in any other way. The alternatives seem to be either: a) make peace with those dilemmas; or b) take a leap of faith. I've never really seen an argument for the former which isn't self-refuting. That's not to say it's not a perfectly valid option, I'm just not convinced it's necessarily better than the alternative. Of course, perhaps the best situation to be in is to not experience those dilemmas in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 12, 2023 4:12:25 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. If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to his argument that we only desire what can be satisfied because we can't desire something we cannot conceive. If I remember correctly, it was something along the lines of there being food to satisfy hunger, drink to satisfy thirst, etc, therefore if you desire something that nothing in this world can satisfy, it stands to reason that that there must be something outside of this world. That doesn't sound like a non-rational emotional element to his belief; that sounds like a rational argument about an emotional element that we all share. After all, if he concluded, by the same reasoning, that there is only one desire that can't be fulfilled, there would be a long line at the Special Pleading Dept.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 12, 2023 10:58:23 GMT
If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to his argument that we only desire what can be satisfied because we can't desire something we cannot conceive. If I remember correctly, it was something along the lines of there being food to satisfy hunger, drink to satisfy thirst, etc, therefore if you desire something that nothing in this world can satisfy, it stands to reason that that there must be something outside of this world. That doesn't sound like a non-rational emotional element to his belief; that sounds like a rational argument about an emotional element that we all share. Oh, it's 100% a rational argument (I don't actually find it a particularly convincing one but that's kinda irrelevant). But it presupposes the existence of this yearning for the transcendent. My theory is that unless you possess this yearning to a sufficient degree, you'll never actually be religious, even if you were presented with a completely knockdown argument for the existence of God. You might admit he exists, but you wouldn't worship him.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 12, 2023 14:01:36 GMT
it was something along the lines of there being food to satisfy hunger, drink to satisfy thirst, etc, therefore if you desire something that nothing in this world can satisfy, it stands to reason that that there must be something outside of this world. That doesn't sound like a non-rational emotional element to his belief; that sounds like a rational argument about an emotional element that we all share. It also sounds like a circular argument, or at the very least simply demonstrating that some people are never satisfied. (Though I accept that view that seeking the transcendental - or more precisely deriving a pattern from the unknown - for evolutionary reasons, is hard-wired into the human condition). Also, unless one knows absolutely everything there is possibly to satisfy one in this world, when we all have experiences and knowledge which we have yet to discover, then how does we know that we cannot ever be satisfied there? For C S Lewis perhaps his early interest in sadomasochism was less 'satisfying' than later being an apologist for Christianity. I am happy it worked out for him although perhaps influenced by the treatment he received at school his reputation today among some as something of an intellectual bully - Philip Pullman, whose His Dark Materials trilogy presents as a sort of anti-Narnia, regards Lewis's religious writings as "bullying, hectoring and dishonest in all kinds of ways" - was a price to pay.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 13, 2023 7:50:11 GMT
If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to his argument that we only desire what can be satisfied because we can't desire something we cannot conceive. If I remember correctly, it was something along the lines of there being food to satisfy hunger, drink to satisfy thirst, etc, therefore if you desire something that nothing in this world can satisfy, it stands to reason that that there must be something outside of this world. That doesn't sound like a non-rational emotional element to his belief; that sounds like a rational argument about an emotional element that we all share. Oh, it's 100% a rational argument (I don't actually find it a particularly convincing one but that's kinda irrelevant). But it presupposes the existence of this yearning for the transcendent. My theory is that unless you possess this yearning to a sufficient degree, you'll never actually be religious, even if you were presented with a completely knockdown argument for the existence of God. You might admit he exists, but you wouldn't worship him. I agree it's not a great argument (at least not on its own), but if it wasn't meant to convince, presupposition would be unnecessary. And I'm not sure it was. Seems to me it's more of an explanation of why he believes rather than a justification. Remember, he called himself "the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England." If the road he was on took him to belief in God, it would be incorrect to say his belief in God put him on that road. "Doubtless, by definition, God was Reason itself. But would He also be 'reasonable' in that other, more comfortable sense? Not the slightest assurance on that score was offered me. Total surrender, the absolute leap in the dark, were demanded. The reality with which no treaty can be made was upon me." - CS Lewis, Surprised by JoyWorship need not apply.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 13, 2023 11:07:36 GMT
Remember, he called himself "the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England." I always suspect he over-eggs that to be honest. If he was so very reluctant to believe, it's a wonder the arguments that finally convinced him aren't stronger than they are. I feel he's a fairly mediocre apologist. The likes of William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne seem much better to me, but I find even their arguments unconvincing. I guess I'm even more reluctant than Lewis then.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Nov 13, 2023 12:40:52 GMT
Sweeping and amazingly silly ad hom generalizations are usually the most rudimentary clues to indicating that the user of them is someone not to be taken seriously as regards anything else they might say. Yet Arlon continues on with the notion that these types of ad hom generalizations are per se sterling proof of his superior intelligence .
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 15, 2023 0:03:17 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)
Do you think the "RNA soup" is ever going to do anything even remotely like assembling life? It has not begun. There is in fact no agency in "science" that can assemble life from lifeless matter. That is obvious to intelligent people. Yet there are some people who do not have sufficient mental capacity to see that. Have you been called "stupid"? That would not be surprising. If you want people to stop calling you stupid you need to develop better arguments. We don't.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 15, 2023 5:16:31 GMT
There is in fact no agency in "science" that can assemble life from lifeless matter. Even if there was... "Get your own dirt." Or as Carl Sagan put it: "To really make an apple pie from scratch, you must begin by inventing the universe."
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 15, 2023 5:30:59 GMT
Remember, he called himself "the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England." I always suspect he over-eggs that to be honest. If he was so very reluctant to believe, it's a wonder the arguments that finally convinced him aren't stronger than they are. I feel he's a fairly mediocre apologist. The likes of William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne seem much better to me, but I find even their arguments unconvincing. I guess I'm even more reluctant than Lewis then. I don't necessarily agree with everything he's written. Regardless, the point here is that belief in God isn't always unreasonable. But if we say theists believe because they want to, we should also say atheists don't believe because they don't want to, even despite the argument against Pascal's Wager.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Nov 15, 2023 14:29:07 GMT
But if we say theists believe because they want to, we should also say atheists don't believe because they don't want to I think basically in order to be a true believer (rather than say someone who was raised in a particular religion and just accepts it without much thought) you need to have all of the following: a) the capacity to believe b) the urge to believe c) a decent reason to believe (not some knockdown proof) The atheist could then indeed be seen as someone who lacks one or more of these.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 15, 2023 21:31:23 GMT
But if we say theists believe because they want to, we should also say atheists don't believe because they don't want to I think basically in order to be a true believer (rather than say someone who was raised in a particular religion and just accepts it without much thought) you need to have all of the following: a) the capacity to believe b) the urge to believe c) a decent reason to believe (not some knockdown proof) The atheist could then indeed be seen as someone who lacks one or more of these. Oh, it's an urge now? Like an itch that must be scratched? If I were God, I would give a pass to those who lack the capacity.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Nov 15, 2023 23:56:38 GMT
If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to his argument that we only desire what can be satisfied because we can't desire something we cannot conceive. If I remember correctly, it was something along the lines of there being food to satisfy hunger, drink to satisfy thirst, etc, therefore if you desire something that nothing in this world can satisfy, it stands to reason that that there must be something outside of this world. That doesn't sound like a non-rational emotional element to his belief; that sounds like a rational argument about an emotional element that we all share. Oh, it's 100% a rational argument (I don't actually find it a particularly convincing one but that's kinda irrelevant). But it presupposes the existence of this yearning for the transcendent. My theory is that unless you possess this yearning to a sufficient degree, you'll never actually be religious, even if you were presented with a completely knockdown argument for the existence of God. You might admit he exists, but you wouldn't worship him.
So atheists admit God exists but just don't worship Him?
|
|