faith is a useful tool

[gnomon]

Splendid, my good sir!

Bully for you!




okay, I'm done.

 

[chaffdog]

Is there anything intrinsically wrong with faith?

Some people have faith in Intelligent Design and try and get it taught in schools, thus damaging the education of little kids who believe what they are told and haven't learnt to think logically for themselves and question.

 

[Copernicus]

Until now, you've only provided us with the non sequitur: "We exist. Therefore, God exists."

You should look up "non sequitur".

How does our existence preclude the existence of God? That would be the non sequitur. You presenting it as such is merely a dicto simpliciter or over simplification of the relationship.

The argument you made was a non sequitur because your conclusion did not follow from the premise. The Latin means literally "it does not follow". There was no logic in between the premise and the conclusion. The question you impute to me presupposes that I argued our existence would preclude the existence of God, which I did not argue and do not believe. So, having now learned what "non sequitur" means, you should also look up "straw man". That is the new fallacy that I am accusing you of.

But then the process of theism and atheism has nothing to do with logic. It has to do with both of us pulling our belief system out of our butts for whatever reason. You want to pit creationism against evolution, and I believe in both. Go ahead and prove to me how life started with evolution. What? It doesn't cover the GENESIS of life? How quaint. This disproves the existence of God HOW? You see, just as with logic, the process of theism or atheism has nothing to do with science either.

I will stipulate to the fact that you are not using logic and that your argument has nothing to do with it. As you admit, you are pulling it out of your butt. As for me, I like to use a more conventional body part for my thinking. Here, you actually begin to construct the argument that you must have thought implicit in your cryptic little non sequitur. There are many ways that we might have come into being that did not involve your god, who might or might not exist whether life were created abiogenetically or not. Pull yourself together man. You are dreaming up imaginary arguments for me to make and then attacking them as if I had made them to counter your non sequitur argument. Since you offered a fallacious argument, all I needed to do was point out the fallacy.

...But if it helps your psyche to believe that belief in atheism is somehow superior to theism, then who am I to challenge that. Ain't that right brother?

Take a breath, brother. You pointedly did not address most of the comments in my last post, and it is pretty obvious why. You have no reasoned method for preferring your god over any other, although you, like me, reject the existence of most of them. I'm not saying that atheism is superior to theism. I'm saying that your level of skepticism appears inconsistent. You reject all those other gods, but you seem to suspend your skepticism when it comes to your own. I have no problem with that, and you may just choose to engage in "special pleading" (another fallacy) for your God. In that case, I would not maintain that atheism is superior to theism, but that your defense of theism is abysmally poor. And, if you intend to attack me for being skeptical of your god, then you are a hypocrite for being skeptical of all the others.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The question you impute to me presupposes that I argued our existence would preclude the existence of God, which I did not argue and do not believe.

Great. You are making progress. Now stop putting words in my mouth.

I will stipulate to the fact that you are not using logic and that your argument has nothing to do with it.

Neither are you. That's the gist of this argument. Belief or non-belief in God has NOTHING to do with logic. We can't go further until your pride can accept this. Logic, like science, can neither PROVE nor DISPROVE the existence of God. Twisting logic and impugning mine does not make it so.

I'm not saying that atheism is superior to theism.

Because it isn't. Why pretend that it is so?

You reject all those other gods, but you seem to suspend your skepticism when it comes to your own.

But why? Perhaps I "saw" the light, both literally and figuratively. I selected ONE WIFE, and spurned all others. Does that mean I merely "suspended my skepticism" for the one? In a court of law, when the witness points out the defendant as the one who stabbed their friend, are they suspending skepticism for everyone else, or have they merely indicated the ONE person who did it? My first conclusion about life in general is that there IS a God. My second conclusion is that MOST people's concept of God is just another iteration of mine. Quick... what's the name of that fallacy you just committed? C'mon, you can figure it out (There are actually two that I can see).

I have no problem with that, and you may just choose to engage in "special pleading" (another fallacy) for your God.

Somehow, I think you just found the Nizkor Project. Too stinking funny. No special pleading here. Any more you want to add?

 

[Copernicus]

Great. You are making progress. Now stop putting words in my mouth.

The only thing in your mouth so far: :foot:

That's the gist of this argument. Belief or non-belief in God has NOTHING to do with logic...

I'm not surprised you would say this, given that you show no evidence of understanding logic. If you don't want to use logic, then you shouldn't engage in arguments over the existence of God.

...Logic, like science, can neither PROVE nor DISPROVE the existence of God...

You understand neither logic nor science. Logical proofs do not guarantee the soundness of a conclusion, only its validity with respect to premises. Scientific proofs are not logical proofs. Induction is not the same as deduction.

You reject all those other gods, but you seem to suspend your skepticism when it comes to your own.

But why? Perhaps I "saw" the light, both literally and figuratively. I selected ONE WIFE, and spurned all others. Does that mean I merely "suspended my skepticism" for the one? In a court of law, when the witness points out the defendant as the one who stabbed their friend, are they suspending skepticism for everyone else, or have they merely indicated the ONE person who did it?

Whether you choose your spouse randomly or through a process of dating and courtship, there is always a METHOD in a selection process. Similarly, you use a method--associative memory--to identify a perpetrator. My point was that your method for choosing your god appears inconsistent with your method for rejecting all the others. It was also that I understand and agree with your rejection of all the other gods. You might have a good reason for choosing to put your faith in the one god you choose to believe in, but your choice appears to be exempt from your normal, sensible skepticism of sensational claims. That is the nature of religious faith--an inconsistency in one's normal approach to belief.

My first conclusion about life in general is that there IS a God. My second conclusion is that MOST people's concept of God is just another iteration of mine. Quick... what's the name of that fallacy you just committed? C'mon, you can figure it out (There are actually two that I can see).

Er, I didn't say anything. You were in the middle of a paragraph when you suddenly accused me of committing a fallacy. So, I'll just point out that you have given me two conclusions and no premises. Logic is not your strong suit.

I have no problem with that, and you may just choose to engage in "special pleading" (another fallacy) for your God.

Somehow, I think you just found the Nizkor Project. Too stinking funny. No special pleading here. Any more you want to add?

Sure. Your replies seem a bit unfocused. Nothing I said had anything to do with the Holocaust, but I'm guessing that you found some convoluted connection in your own mind.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'm not surprised you would say this, given that you show no evidence of understanding logic. If you don't want to use logic, then you shouldn't engage in arguments over the existence of God.

Then by all means, Mr Copernicus, please show us your proof that God does not exist. Then we can all believe that your faith in atheism is based on science and logic. Go ahead... trot it on out.

 

[Copernicus]

Then by all means, Mr Copernicus, please show us your proof that God does not exist. Then we can all believe that your faith in atheism is based on science and logic. Go ahead... trot it on out.

You don't need a proof of God's nonexistence. You need an understanding of when proof is required and just what it means to "prove" something. It is pretty clear that nothing I say on that subject will get your attention. Let's try to stick to the topic of "faith" here. My only comment on your faith is the apparent inconsistency in how you apply it.

 

[chaffdog]

Then by all means, Mr Copernicus, please show us your proof that God does not exist. Then we can all believe that your faith in atheism is based on science and logic. Go ahead... trot it on out.

The nature of the beast is that sicence and logic cannot deal with God because there is nothing in the world of our experience that we can observe that either supports or negates the theory of god - god is an untestable hypothesis. That is the reason why it is not supported by science. 1 untesitable hypothesis, 2 outside the realm of science.

 

[Copernicus]

The nature of the beast is that sicence and logic cannot deal with God because there is nothing in the world of our experience that we can observe that either supports or negates the theory of god - god is an untestable hypothesis. That is the reason why it is not supported by science. 1 untesitable hypothesis, 2 outside the realm of science.

Well, now, that would be true if there were no allegations of miracles, but miracles are events in our physical world. Those who insist that God intervenes in human destiny are also acquiescing to the argument that God is an empirically detectable being. After all, there is no shortage of Christians, Jews, and Muslims who will offer up their holy scripture as evidence of something.

This idea that science and religion do not overlap is sometimes referred to by Stephen Jay Gould's term Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). I agree completely with Dawkins' criticism of NOMA: "[a] universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. [...] Religions make existence claims, and this means scientific claims."

 

[IF_u_knew]

Consider this:

Faith is used 2 times from Gen - Malachi
Believe - 17

Knowledge - 120 times
Understanding - 136 times
Wisdom - 181
search - 128


Faith is used 245 times from Mat - Rev
believe - 124

knowledge - 42
understanding - 24
wisdom - 53
search - 3

See a trend here?

 

[darkendless]

Consider this:

Faith is used 2 times from Gen - Malachi
Believe - 17

Knowledge - 120 times
Understanding - 136 times
Wisdom - 181
search - 128


Faith is used 245 times from Mat - Rev
believe - 124

knowledge - 42
understanding - 24
wisdom - 53
search - 3

See a trend here?

Theres a trend? I didn't think the bible was useful for proving anything to be honest. Faith is in your head (if anywhere) and not on a page.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Faith is in your head (if anywhere) and not on a page.

I do not disagree with this. :no:

 

[Scuba Pete]

You don't need a proof of God's nonexistence.

So, after all that condescension, you simply can't prove your position? We call that pulling it out of your butt Mr Copernicus.

It seems you have a lot to work on with your intellectual honesty... as well as science and logic. I won't bother mentioning humility... I am sure it's a foreign word for you.

 

[Copernicus]

OK, Scuba. Have a nice day.

 

[zenzero]

Friend chaffdog,
Welcome to RF1
That is a good question:

Faith is a useful tool for avoiding answering difficult questions:

True but truth cannot be AVOIDED permanently, one has to face it sometime or the other.
Love & rgds

 

[danny vee]

And science possesses a self-correcting methodology for discovering truth, whereas religion possesses a belief-maintenance methodology that resists change of belief. (Quote)

Resisting change of belief isn't true. Religion in itself doesn't force you to believe without thought, or it shouldn't at least. We have free choice to believe. My dad for example is an agnostic, and yet I believe based on personal experience, and what I have read, seen, heard and felt.

 

[Copernicus]

And science possesses a self-correcting methodology for discovering truth, whereas religion possesses a belief-maintenance methodology that resists change of belief.

Resisting change of belief isn't true. Religion in itself doesn't force you to believe without thought, or it shouldn't at least. We have free choice to believe. My dad for example is an agnostic, and yet I believe based on personal experience, and what I have read, seen, heard and felt.

The objection is not just to resistance of change of belief. Science also provides us with tools to resist change of belief. The problem with religion is that the method of belief-maintenance relies on irrational means. Scientists do not meet every Sunday to affirm their belief in gravity. They do not praise science every time an experiment yields results. Nor do they exhort each other not to listen to skeptics. People find it unnecessary to thank science after they undergo life-saving surgery. They have no fear that scientific miracles might cease to go their way if they don't appear properly thankful.

 

[challupa]

The objection is not just to resistance of change of belief. Science also provides us with tools to resist change of belief. The problem with religion is that the method of belief-maintenance relies on irrational means. Scientists do not meet every Sunday to affirm their belief in gravity. They do not praise science every time an experiment yields results. Nor do they exhort each other not to listen to skeptics. People find it unnecessary to thank science after they undergo life-saving surgery. They have no fear that scientific miracles might cease to go their way if they don't appear properly thankful.

Good points. There are plenty of "miracles" in life without having to make some up. I think that we are amazing creatures and we've come so far and should be very proud of what we have achieved.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The problem with religion is that the method of belief-maintenance relies on irrational means.

This is true for theists and atheists alike! Science does not delve into the existence or non-existence of God: Religion does!

 

[darkendless]

This is true for theists and atheists alike! Science does not delve into the existence or non-existence of God: Religion does!

When religious texts make absurd claims like the earth is 40,000 years old and that we were created and did not evolve, then science and religion mingle. Science has nothing to do with the actual existance of God but when the claims that support it start falling apart one must question the validity of the remaining claims.