Do You Favor Belief Over Knowledge and Curiosity?

[Kenny]

Their is a big difference between trying to get people to reason logically and to try to make them accept a religious belief. You conflate refute the creation myths with attacking Christianity. By your standards Galileo tried to refute Christianity.

Interesting.... I find faith quite logical. Seems like quite a lot of people do.

Why do you find faith illogical?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting.... I find faith quite logical. Seems like quite a lot of people do.

Why do you find faith illogical?

At best that only tells us that you do not understand logic. And no, a lot of people find faith comforting. No one can demonstrate that it is logical.

One can believe whatever one wants on "faith". That is demonstrated by the countless different religions in the world all faith based. One can believe in Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, or even Pastafarianism if one wishes based upon faith. Where is the "logic" behind that?

 

[Kenny]

At best that only tells us that you do not understand logic. And no, a lot of people find faith comforting. No one can demonstrate that it is logical.

One can believe whatever one wants on "faith". That is demonstrated by the countless different religions in the world all faith based. One can believe in Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, or even Pastafarianism if one wishes based upon faith. Where is the "logic" behind that?

Apparently, you haven't logically thought it through.

No matter. Just don't proselytize me into your way of thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently, you haven't logically thought it through.

No matter. Just don't proselytize me into your way of thinking.

Please, no bearing of false witness against your neighbor. What I do is not proselytizing, unlike you I have evidence, not mere wishful thinking (also known as faith) on my side.

 

[Kenny]

What I do is not proselytizing, .

I would disagree...

What evidence do you have that there is no God? Present your logical case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would disagree...

What evidence do you have that there is no God? Present your logical case.

What are you talking about? First I have not tried to convince others to give up Christianity. Once again it appears that you are making the same error that the Catholic Church made in regards to Galileo.

Besides that the proper staring position is one of disbelief. But since you asked:

 

[nPeace]

While this is a parody, I cannot tell you how many times I've had such a debate with religious fundamentalists.

For those of you who refuse to waver on your beliefs in the presence of truth presented through objective evidence or scientific theory, what brings you to reject these truths? Comfort? Fear? Pride? Poor fashion sense?

Why compels you persist in arguing for you beliefs?

I would first ask the question, "Why do so many scientists object to this "objective evidence"? If it is so objective, then no one would have reason to object against, but the fact is, it's not objective.

Hence there is no sensible reason why a person ought to let of reason, or let go of one belief, to hold on to another... imho.

 

[osgart]

Its what people infer from knowledge that has not crushed my wonder yet. Evolution is a fact i know. But still there must be something pretty smart about it for us to be here.

I prefer knowledge over belief majorly, but no knowledge humans can gain is going to be the absolute. And knowledge changes over time as new things are learned.

 

[Milton Platt]

While this is a parody, I cannot tell you how many times I've had such a debate with religious fundamentalists.

For those of you who refuse to waver on your beliefs in the presence of truth presented through objective evidence or scientific theory, what brings you to reject these truths? Comfort? Fear? Pride? Poor fashion sense?

Why compels you persist in arguing for you beliefs?

I agree with you on your premise, but remember that knowledge is a subset of belief.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, are you wondering if anyone feels blatant ignorance is a good thing? I'm gonna guess you won't get many takers.

While I don't think many would characterize it quite as you did (ignorance is a good thing), a lifetime of observing people sometimes going to quite extraordinary lengths to NOT learn something that they do NOT want to know has me convinced that there's more of it out there than you think. Just try listening to "true believers" explain why the antics of their current Pop Hero, or the idiotic actions of their current "Saviour President" are not what they so obviously are. We humans are practically geniuses at this form of self-delusion, sometimes.

 

[Sir Doom]

Well, 4 pages in and no one's taken the bait. Isn't that interesting?

So far, you have non-fundamentalists explaining why they think fundamentalists rationalize their beliefs (as expected).

You also have fundamentalists ignoring the question entirely and instead attempting to rationalize their beliefs (also expected).

I can't say I'm all that shocked that you haven't received any responses from fundamentalists willing to admit to rationalization and then explaining why they do it. Its almost as if they don't believe they are rationalizing anything at all! I find that completely and totally in congruence with all previous rationalizations that have ever happened for any reason at all.

I suppose my smug satisfaction is probably a bit petty, but I can't help it. Maybe the next 4 pages will prove me wrong, eh?

 

[Sir Doom]

While I don't think many would characterize it quite as you did (ignorance is a good thing), a lifetime of observing people sometimes going to quite extraordinary lengths to NOT learn something that they do NOT want to know has me convinced that there's more of it out there than you think. Just try listening to "true believers" explain why the antics of their current Pop Hero, or the idiotic actions of their current "Saviour President" are not what they so obviously are. We humans are practically geniuses at this form of self-delusion, sometimes.

I am well aware of the rampant fundamentalism in the world. I just know they aren't going to come in here and explain their reasoning for doing so. They don't really see it that way. All they are going to do is some more rationalization. Its a pretty simple equation, and I know the OP knows that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would first ask the question, "Why do so many scientists object to this "objective evidence"? If it is so objective, then no one would have reason to object against, but the fact is, it's not objective.

Hence there is no sensible reason why a person ought to let of reason, or let go of one belief, to hold on to another... imho.

What objective evidence are you talking about? If you can be specific it It easy to show whether it qualifies as being such.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am well aware of the rampant fundamentalism in the world. I just know they aren't going to come in here and explain their reasoning for doing so. They don't really see it that way. All they are going to do is some more rationalization. Its a pretty simple equation, and I know the OP knows that.

They don't "explain their reasoning" because they are not reasoning. When you feel vulnerable, and are at the same time ignorant, anything that makes you feel safe is going to be latched onto with real tenacity.

So the question, at least I think, becomes "what do you want?" Knowledge or security? And I think to one extent or another, we all want both. In my case, though, having never had security, I've never come to think of it as something to fuss about, but I simply adore knowledge. For many others, I am certain, knowledge that is perceived as a threat to security will be seen as so dangerous as to need to be rejected entirely.

And you know, the examples are absolutely legion. Just for the simplest, think about the family of someone who turns out to have committed some terrible crimes. We have all seen the mothers and fathers of such individuals vehemently denying...in the face of incontrovertible evidence...that it is impossible, that the evidence is made up, that this son could not possibly have...yadda yadda yadda. Because the admission of knowledge is simply out of the question.

 

[Sir Doom]

They don't "explain their reasoning" because they are not reasoning. When you feel vulnerable, and are at the same time ignorant, anything that makes you feel safe is going to be latched onto with real tenacity.

So the question, at least I think, becomes "what do you want?" Knowledge or security? And I think to one extent or another, we all want both. In my case, though, having never had security, I've never come to think of it as something to fuss about, but I simply adore knowledge. For many others, I am certain, knowledge that is perceived as a threat to security will be seen as so dangerous as to need to be rejected entirely.

And you know, the examples are absolutely legion. Just for the simplest, think about the family of someone who turns out to have committed some terrible crimes. We have all seen the mothers and fathers of such individuals vehemently denying...in the face of incontrovertible evidence...that it is impossible, that the evidence is made up, that this son could not possibly have...yadda yadda yadda. Because the admission of knowledge is simply out of the question.

I'm not disagreeing with that, I understand how fundamentalism works. But you and I are on the outside. The OP asks for "those of you who refuse to waver on your beliefs in the presence of truth presented through objective evidence or scientific theory" to explain why they do that.

This requires that someone comes in and admits that what they believe isn't true and then to explain why they believe it anyway! That's never going to happen and I'm sure the OP knew that before posting. All that is going to happen is what has happened. Non-fundamentalists will do their best to explain why they think fundamentalists do what they do (oh and pat the OP on the back for a funny video they had nothing to do with) and fundamentalists will simply rationalize their beliefs before our very eyes opening a big door for ridicule. Such a shocking turn of events. Unless you're me and saw that coming a mile away and even said so. And here we are.

 

[Looncall]

Its what people infer from knowledge that has not crushed my wonder yet. Evolution is a fact i know. But still there must be something pretty smart about it for us to be here.

I prefer knowledge over belief majorly, but no knowledge humans can gain is going to be the absolute. And knowledge changes over time as new things are learned.

Where do you get your "must" from? Why cannot we be just a lucky fluke?

 

[nPeace]

What objective evidence are you talking about? If you can be specific it It easy to show whether it qualifies as being such.

I'm referring to the same mentioned in the OP, so you might want to find out what that is from there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm referring to the same mentioned in the OP, so you might want to find out what that is from there.

There was no specific evidence mentioned there. That post only mentioned evidence that shows the beliefs of some theists to be wrong. You seemed to think that there was evidence for your beliefs. Your dodge indicates that you do not have any.

 

[osgart]

Where do you get your "must" from? Why cannot we be just a lucky fluke?

I cannot understand the "just a lucky fluke deal." My must comes from the fact that complex form takes on function, function takes on purpose. The purpose of surviving. If we were accidental, then no functionality would happen, no survival.

 

[nPeace]

There was no specific evidence mentioned there. That post only mentioned evidence that shows the beliefs of some theists to be wrong. You seemed to think that there was evidence for your beliefs. Your dodge indicates that you do not have any.

What is wrong with you?