Do "Believers" really believe?

[LogDog]

Ahh, yes, it IS terribly popular to have true faith in something these days! I remember just the other day over-hearing my peers comment how they'd love to give up their prominent drinking, lustful natures, and seared conscience in favor of my christian beliefs. People defintely looked up to me in high school because they knew I believed in the man and message of Jesus. They threw palm branches at my feet as I walked the hall, and shouted "Hallelujah!" when I answered a question. Yep, it's defintely way easier to have faith than to just do what you please in your short time on this earth.

It's painfully obvious to me that you are basing your views of people of faith in a very narrow column. I wonder, Logdog, if you have any friends who truly have faith in something? Not "christians" who pay tribute to God by going to church every sunday, then forgetting His existence until the next, but people who earnestly pursue their faiths. If I were to completely forget all of christianity, and then see the way christians are portrayed, and how a majority didn't really care about there faith, I would be right beside you asking what the deal was.

~matthew.william~

Christians aren't being portrayed accurately? Really? How about muslims extremists? Are they being portrayed accurately?

 

[LogDog]

I was unaware there could be strong evidence for the nonexistence of things.

~matthew.william~

I've read (the CliffsNotes version of) your bible. Have you read mine? It's called Letter to a Christian Nation. You've got to check it out.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Out of curiosity, if a person is a theist and is not asking you to believe in what they believe and they acknowledge that there may, indeed, not be anything supernatural that exists, are their beliefs still irrational, in your opinion?

 

[matthew.william]

Christians aren't being portrayed accurately? Really? How about muslims extremists? Are they being portrayed accurately?

I think they are not being portrayed accurately in the sense that all christians are lumped into the same negative connotation that we are all gay-hating, bible-pushing street evangelists who wish science would go the way of the buffalo, etc. It's as if I were to lump all athiests into the category of being people with an air of superiority, who judge believers as backwards folk, and have very pessimistic views on everything. There are people who fit these descriptions in both categories, but it does not mean when we share a name, that we share the same creed or philosophy.

Are muslim extremists being portrayed accurately? I suppose if they follow that creed of violence and hatred towards others, yes. Are muslims portrayed accurately? A thousand times NO! They have been lumped in with extremists, simply because they share the same name. People who have no desire to dwelve deeper than the surface, such as yourself, will always categorize people of faith in the largest possible groups and in a negative light. You decided before you investigated, that God is a impossibility. When you started this thread, you had that in mind. You simply say, I am right, you believers are wrong, now let me tell you why your beliefs are delusions. If you have such a closed-mind to the subject, and are so sure of what you think, why is it you discuss at all? Your sense of superiority and pride shall get you nowhere.

~matthew.william~

 

[LogDog]

my beliefs are influenced by the life I have lived with the influences I was given.

You are under the influence of a persistent false belief in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

Theists believe because they have lived a life that forces them to believe. Or, they need to believe.

Does someone have a gun to your head?

 

[matthew.william]

I've read (the CliffsNotes version of) your bible. Have you read mine? It's called Letter to a Christian Nation. You've got to check it out.

Oh good, Samuel Harris, a wonderful example of complete trite. I've read the book, as well as his "End of Faith". I must say, he is one of the worst logicians I have ever read. It's the equivilent of somebody arguing evolution with the answers in genesis web site.

~matthew.william~

 

[Feathers in Hair]

MOD POST

Just as a general reminder for the thread, please keep in mind that, even though this is the debate section, personal attacks are neither welcome nor allowed. This applies to everyone.

Thanks in advance for remembering this.

/End Mod Post

 

[LogDog]

I think they are not being portrayed accurately in the sense that all christians are lumped into the same negative connotation that we are all gay-hating, bible-pushing street evangelists who wish science would go the way of the buffalo, etc. It's as if I were to lump all athiests into the category of being people with an air of superiority, who judge believers as backwards folk, and have very pessimistic views on everything. There are people who fit these descriptions in both categories, but it does not mean when we share a name, that we share the same creed or philosophy.

Some are worse than others.

You decided before you investigated, that God is a impossibility.

God is improbable. Not impossible.

why is it you discuss at all? Your sense of superiority and pride shall get you nowhere.

I enjoy discussing.

 

[matthew.william]

Apologies, Feathers.

Some are worse than others.

Alright, well, we were discussing the portrayal of believers...How do you feel christians are portrayed? Muslims? A portrayal is a gathered depiction of the entire collective group. It is either positive, negative, or neutral. If someone makes a portrait of me, it won't contain all of my elements. It's a very base image of me. So, which is it? Are portrayals of believers positive, negative, or neutral? Why? You cannot say, "some are worse than others" as a summary of a how people are portrayed. You've moved from portrayal to describing individuals.

God is improbable. Not impossible.

Well, as far as I see it, "improbable" is as far as one can get when discussing the non-existence of things. You cannot actually disprove the existence of anything, so the word impossible cannot be used. But based on previous posts, It seems to me that the notion of the existence of God is the most improbable thing in the universe to you, or at least very close. Correct me if I am wrong.


I would still very much like to see this strong evidence for the non-existence of God you have.

~matthew.william~

 

[James the Persian]

Because, of course, the cultural norm in the U.S. is Paganism, and I would be alienated if I didn't follow along with the rest of the crowd. I haven't turned to a certain path because it holds personal validity for me and doesn't call into question the rights of others to believe or not believe what they wish, I just decided it because it was the easiest path to take.

Very well said. Of course being in such an overwhelmingly Orthodox country as the UK, I couldn't possibly be doing anything other than following a cultural norm either, could I?

Believe me LogDog, being Orthodox certainly doesn't provide you with any tangible benefits in this society and, given that it's a rather demanding faith, with frequent fasting and the like, I'd hardly have converted if I didn't believe, now would I? In your overly extreme 'what if?', I would, of course, repudiate my beliefs to save my child, but only because the lie (as any repudiation could be no more than that) would be the lesser sin when compared against allowing someone (anyone other than myself, not just my child) to be killed when I could prevent it. And, yes, I do sincerely hope (and believe) that I would have the courage to lay down my own life for my faith.

James

 

[wizanda]

You can tell real believers as you can see it in their Aura, people whom have faith shine...those who don't look dull.....
For me i would always stand with what is acceptable to my heart and not some book....
else if this was the case many of you would be stoned to death?? Since that is neither acceptable in modern culture or to what my heart says.....no i don't believe in what a book tells me is right and wrong, if it tells me i must murder or kill...as them laws should be written on your heart not to do that.

That is why i have site called "one true faith" as most non religious that keep to the rules on their heart and not make excuses of how some books says it.....show a mustard seed of understanding.
So what is a true believer? someone whom has never read a religious books, yet remains keeping all the books with out lack, as their heart tells them to and in that they have true faith.

 

[LogDog]

Out of curiosity, if a person is a theist and is not asking you to believe in what they believe and they acknowledge that there may, indeed, not be anything supernatural that exists, are their beliefs still irrational, in your opinion?

In my opinion, yes. To persist in a belief of the supernatural in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence leads me to question judgment.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

In my opinion, yes. To persist in a belief of the supernatural in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence leads me to question judgment.

Just as I would ask a theist attempting to prove their arguement for such evidence, what is the 'overwhelming contrary evidence' you speak of?

 

[LogDog]

Oh good, Samuel Harris, a wonderful example of complete trite. I've read the book, as well as his "End of Faith". I must say, he is one of the worst logicians I have ever read. It's the equivilent of somebody arguing evolution with the answers in genesis web site.

~matthew.william~

Why does this not surprise me. Embracing the logic of an archaic understanding of nature and denying the overwhelming evidence in opposition to it is in keeping with the symptoms of delusional reasoning.

 

[LogDog]

Just as I would ask a theist attempting to prove their arguement for such evidence, what is the 'overwhelming contrary evidence' you speak of?

For starters, it's the lack of empirical evidence to support assertions for the existence of the supernatural.

Science is based on the observation that the universe is governed by natural laws that can be discerned through repeatable experiments. Science serves as a reliable, rational basis for predictions. Skeptics use critical thinking to decide the validity of claims, and do not base claims on faith. In the absence of a credible scientific theory explaining natural phenomena, people tend to attribute them to supernatural forces. Science has since eliminated the need for appealing to supernatural explanations. The idea that the role of deities is to fill in the remaining "gaps" in scientific understanding is irrational. Anthropologists consider religions to be social constructs that should be analyzed with an unbiased, historical viewpoint. Nearly all cultures have their own creation myths and gods, and there is no apparent reason to believe that a certain god has a special status above gods otherwise not believed to be real, or that one culture's god is more correct than another's. In the same way, all cultures have different, and often incompatible, religious beliefs, none any more likely to be true than another, making the selection of a single specific religion seemingly arbitrary.

If only common sense were more common.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

For starters, it's the lack of empirical evidence to support assertions for the existence of the supernatural.

Science is based on the observation that the universe is governed by natural laws that can be discerned through repeatable experiments. Science serves as a reliable, rational basis for predictions. Skeptics use critical thinking to decide the validity of claims, and do not base claims on faith. In the absence of a credible scientific theory explaining natural phenomena, people tend to attribute them to supernatural forces. Science has since eliminated the need for appealing to supernatural explanations. The idea that the role of deities is to fill in the remaining "gaps" in scientific understanding is irrational. Anthropologists consider religions to be social constructs that should be analyzed with an unbiased, historical viewpoint. Nearly all cultures have their own creation myths and gods, and there is no apparent reason to believe that a certain god has a special status above gods otherwise not believed to be real, or that one culture's god is more correct than another's. In the same way, all cultures have different, and often incompatible, religious beliefs, none any more likely to be true than another, making the selection of a single specific religion seemingly arbitrary.

If only common sense were more common.

Funny- I've used exactly that same phrase before.

So, for example, if a person participates in a religion, knowing it's a social construct and they don't claim that their 'gods' are any more or less valid than that of other groups, or even that they have no more claim to 'the truth' than atheists, you would still deride this persons' beliefs and judge them because it is not what you believe?

 

[LogDog]

Funny- I've used exactly that same phrase before.

So, for example, if a person participates in a religion, knowing it's a social construct and they don't claim that their 'gods' are any more or less valid than that of other groups, or even that they have no more claim to 'the truth' than atheists, you would still deride this persons' beliefs and judge them because it is not what you believe?

I would simply question their judgement.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

I would simply question their judgement.

You would think their decision to do so misinformed and misguided, if I'm understanding correctly?

 

[LogDog]

How do you feel christians are portrayed? Muslims? It is either positive, negative, or neutral. Why?

Christians=generally positive because of the religion's resounding accepted in our culture.

Muslims=generally negative for obvious but inaccurate reasons.

Well, as far as I see it, "improbable" is as far as one can get when discussing the non-existence of things. You cannot actually disprove the existence of anything, so the word impossible cannot be used. But based on previous posts, It seems to me that the notion of the existence of God is the most improbable thing in the universe to you, or at least very close. Correct me if I am wrong.

That seems like an accurate statement to me.

 

[LogDog]

You would think their decision to do so misinformed and misguided, if I'm understanding correctly?

Not necessarily. I think it's more like the conscience denial of reason.