Do you believe in God?

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

They may be in the minority on an open discussion board, but they are the majority among people welcome to participate. So the question becomes, why are they underrepresented here? I'd say that many believers are uncomfortable arguing with educated, skilled debaters who disagree with them. They're overmatched and they know it.

So which theists do participate? We have the educated, theistic humanists, who are not overmatched by the atheists. We have the Dunning-Kruger set who are blissfully unaware that they are overmatched. And we have the martyrs, who are happy to be overmatched and to suffer publicly for their god.

The Dunning-Kruger effect Is not limited to non-atheists in this forum.

And neither is antiintellectualknownothingism.

 

[firedragon]

I've listened to numerous lectures by various swamis and gurus and have never heard 'advaita' pronounced with a 'th' sound (or 'vedanta' for that matter).

Advaitha is not pronounced in English. Your problem is you seem to read in English. No guru pronounces it with a T. It maybe the correct transliteration to demarcate with a S sound and a Th sound. But I don't know transliteration as I have said.

I've never made or heard the distinction before now. Usually when I hear 'advaita,' it's just an abbreviated version of 'advaita vedanta.' While nondualism as a philosophy is growing in popularity in the West that isn't technically considered 'advaita' per se, I'm unaware that the concept you describe above as "Advaitha" having any distinction from Advaita Vedanta.

But thank you for your explanation.

The honor is mine.

 

[firedragon]

They may be in the minority on an open discussion board, but they are the majority among people welcome to participate. So the question becomes, why are they underrepresented here? I'd say that many believers are uncomfortable arguing with educated, skilled debaters who disagree with them. They're overmatched and they know it.

That's just a tribalistic type of assertion. Not a statistical analysis. I have given you numbers of participants, not just my feeling.

The only sound position possible for a skilled empiricist and critical thinker is agnostic atheism. There is no sound or valid argument that ends with, "therefore, God."

Well, speaking about empiricism is a category error. So that's irrelevant. Maybe you should read on empiricism and epistemology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They may be in the minority on an open discussion board, but they are the majority among people welcome to participate. So the question becomes, why are they underrepresented here? I'd say that many believers are uncomfortable arguing with educated, skilled debaters who disagree with them. They're overmatched and they know it.

My impression is that it isn't so much that theists avoid posting here because they've decided they're overmatched. I think that for most of them, they're sure of their beliefs without investigating them too deeply; while they couldn't come up with a sound theological argument, they remember hearing theological arguments that sure sounded convincing as a tween in catechism class/shul/madrassa/whatever and they don't bother to investigate further.

If these people discuss religion on the internet at all, odds are it's just going to be Facebook memes with scripture quotes. There's an outside chance they'll join a discussion board focused on their particular religion or denomination. There's no chance they'll come somewhere focused on religion in general. What would be the point? They already know that their religion is the only one endorsed by God.

 

[Koldo]

I personally know many. You want names?

Hamza (Darren) from Hamza's Den
Yusuf Ponders from Pondering Soul
Justin the EA show

I gave those names because they are well known. If I mention others who are not found on the internet it's absurd so there is no point.

Thanks.

Do you personally know those people? Have you met them?

I am not asking for names, just for a number. I am pretty certain that if I google around I can find someone that abides by Kant's ethics, for example... Never personally met anyone like that though.

Later on, I will try to look up for what convinced those guys you cited.

 

[HonestJoe]

Brother. In the past, many many religious discussions, scholarly work, philosophical work on religions, and even scripture has engaged with logic. Extensively. So I disagree with this assertion with all due respect. There are volumes of work maybe you should get your hands on.

I never said otherwise, but that is generally in the context of supporting their existing beliefs rather than any kind of open investigation of the wider concepts. That is why they will pretty much always end up validating those beliefs (at least the ones which get published).

Everyone will have their biases, but to dismiss them with that presumption without taking an argument as the main point of discussion but the person's biases by itself is the definition of an ad hominem argument. That's exactly what you have done so far.

I'm not dismissing anything out of hand, including the biases everyone will inevitably have. If anyone presents any kind of logical argument or hypothesis in this field, I'll happily treat it on it's merits, but those merits include any biases the source may have, especially if their logic conveniently confirms their established beliefs.

Do you know of any examples of religious logic that directly contradicts that religions fundamental beliefs (even from religions that contradict each other)? This isn't an automatic dismissal of any, it is just an application of logic to them.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Brother. In the past, many many religious discussions, scholarly work, philosophical work on religions, and even scripture has engaged with logic. Extensively. So I disagree with this assertion with all due respect. There are volumes of work maybe you should get your hands on.

That’s very vague and general.

Perhaps if you had links to the scholarly works in question, it might be easier for the rest of us to follow what you are saying.

 

[firedragon]

Do you personally know those people? Have you met them?

I am not asking for names, just for a number. I am pretty certain that if I google around I can find someone that abides by Kant's ethics, for example... Never personally met anyone like that though.

Later on, I will try to look up for what convinced those guys you cited.

Look up each of them and how and why they converted. No problem.

But mate. This is an anonymous discussion forum. Asking for phone numbers is not possible my friend. I have given you names, and where to find them online. You could contact them directly and even have a one on one discussion. Or if they don't have time, you could get on one of their platforms and have a discussion or debate or whatever you wish to do.

Bon Voyage.

 

[firedragon]

That’s very vague and general.

Perhaps if you had links to the scholarly works in question, it might be easier for the rest of us to follow what you are saying.

I don't have links. But if you wish, you can read Ibn Rushd and his Wajibul Wujood. Or Juwaini's Irshad. Or you could try the contingency argument and the Qur'anic Necessary Being description that corresponds with it. Maybe if you search for them you might find some links somewhere. If not get their books. Good reads.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

That's just a tribalistic type of assertion. Not a statistical analysis. I have given you numbers of participants, not just my feeling.

Religion is a team sport.

Hymn of Faith and Happiness

América de Cali Campeón liga águila 2019-2 (Himno de Fe y Alegría-Grupo Niche y Rojo-Son de Cali)

 

[Balthazzar]

They may be in the minority on an open discussion board, but they are the majority among people welcome to participate. So the question becomes, why are they underrepresented here? I'd say that many believers are uncomfortable arguing with educated, skilled debaters who disagree with them. They're overmatched and they know it.

So which theists do participate? We have the educated, theistic humanists, who are not overmatched by the atheists. We have the Dunning-Kruger set who are blissfully unaware that they are overmatched. And we have the martyrs, who are happy to be overmatched and to suffer publicly for their god.

The only sound position possible for a skilled empiricist and critical thinker is agnostic atheism. There is no sound or valid argument that ends with, "therefore, God."

Is that how your god "reasons"?

It is for me. I left Christianity because it didn't make sense and the cognitive dissonance that arises when one agrees to suspend disbelief to test the religion and its claims got worse with time, not better.

By default, I turned to atheism, and being a critical thinker, an empiricist, and a morally healthy member of society, atheistic humanism was inevitable. With time, however, I was glad of that transition not just because humanism wasn't Christianity, which was a good enough reason at first, but because of the positive benefits that mindset afforded.

As I read these threads year after year, I see the problems I left behind and am grateful that they're a thing of my religious past. I no longer think about sin and hell. I no longer feel watched and judged by a cosmic parent. I can be myself and not worry about how I am representing Christ. I am no longer subjected to Abrahamic pessimism and nihilism. I have no problem understanding why there is suffering in the world, and there is no Satan or principle of evil in my world anymore, just some malicious people.

So the benefit wasn't limited to leaving a bad marriage so-to-speak, but included all that came from remarrying wisely. It reminds me of my decision to expatriate, which was initially just to leave a toxic culture, but led to finding something positive

I am sympathetic to your experiences and understand the move from and into a more humanistic frame of reference. I actually attempted to become an atheist once. I couldn't, but atheism has become a somewhat "failsafe" position when in dialogue with certain types of people. It's not that I deceive or lie, I simply utilize terms that are less religious as perceived and accepted. I'm a Christian, I'm an Abrahamic Christian, I'm an Abrahamic pantheist Christian who acknowledges more than one god as valid, I'm an Abrahamic monotheist pantheist Christian evolutionist who acknowledges more than one god as valid having one supreme God (the universe) as source and substance of our realities. Anyway, it's more difficult at times to acknowledge sin (shortcoming) and consequence and aiming to fine tune life existence and footprint, but then again `I think it may "pay off" in the long run. I appreciate your candor.

 

[firedragon]

Religion is a team sport.

Hymn of Faith and Happiness

América de Cali Campeón liga águila 2019-2 (Himno de Fe y Alegría-Grupo Niche y Rojo-Son de Cali)

View attachment 91922

Ad hominem.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I don't have links. But if you wish, you can read Ibn Rushd and his Wajibul Wujood. Or Juwaini's Irshad. Or you could try the contingency argument and the Qur'anic Necessary Being description that corresponds with it. Maybe if you search for them you might find some links somewhere. If not get their books. Good reads.

I’ll pass.

It’s not my job to find your links for you.

 

[firedragon]

I’ll pass.

It’s not my job to find your links for you.

Oh I have the books. I don't need anyone to find me any links. I didn't ask you to find anything "for me". I gave you the information you need to study a particular subject matter. So you are making a strawman making it about a so called "me asking you to find me links".

Cheers.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Ad hominem.

Oooooooo!

Internet Logic!

I like that!

But wouldn’t it be more effective if you posted the meme?

That way you can pose as an objective observer refereeing the discussion, instead of an interested participant.

 

[firedragon]

Oooooooo!

Internet Logic!

I like that!

But wouldn’t it be more effective if you posted the meme?

That way you can pose as an objective observer refereeing the discussion, instead of an interested participant.

View attachment 91924

That's not "internet logic" mate. It's just logic and logical fallacy. There is an easy to read book on logical fallacies called "Illustrated book of bad arguments". You could read it.

Try your best to not engage in ad hominem. It's an invalid argument.

Have a good day.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

That's not "internet logic" mate. It's just logic and logical fallacy. There is an easy to read book on logical fallacies called "Illustrated book of bad arguments". You could read it.

Try your best to not engage in ad hominem. It's an invalid argument.

Have a good day.

Am I supposed to accept your Internet Logic on mere faith alone?

That’s not how things work in my profession.

Pointing out that religion is a team sport is not normally considered a Logical Fallacy in academia.

If you disagree, perhaps you can point to historical or anthropological sources that say otherwise.

 

[LuisDantas]

Irrelevant but thanks for participating.

You reject.what I say, sure.

But it is relevant as heck all the same.

 

[firedragon]

Am I supposed to accept your Internet Logic on mere faith alone?

Nope. Read the book I gave you. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

You reject.what I say, sure.

But it is relevant as heck all the same.

Okay.