Is it admirable to be intolerant of unsubstantiated assumptions?

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

I think you misunderstand my question. I'm not even necessarily talking about disagreement. I feel this way sometimes when my fellow Christians have absolute faith in the Bible, but obviously have never taken the time to study the history behind it. No one should hold beliefs that they have no support for. It's too dangerous.

I don't know some of the parables in the bible are good life guides is not all untruths .
Jesus was not a bad man in the bible seemed like a compassionate chap to myself.
Agreed is lots of crazy claims in that book but there are a lot of truths an it paints a true picture of human nature ,murder , deceit , lies , betrayal its all in there.
What if the bible started with something like , this is the way things could be.
A lot of folks maybe 90% take this religion thing way to seriously any way .Imho heaven needs do'ers an not timewasters .

 

[gnostic]

Not really. We don't know a lot of things for certainty, indeed, absolute certainty is an unrealistic standard for anything, but my views are defensible, based on the best knowledge that we actually currently have and I don't pretend that my positions are absolute, they are open to change as we learn more about the world around us. That's how rational people operate.

The problem is with some people who attached the word "absolute" to a very subjective belief as if this contradiction or oxymoron as if it mean something profound.

Subjective and absolute don't really go well.

 

[Thief]

Sorry, but in the real world, you would need evidences to show that there is a CAUSE, just as much as you would need evidences for EFFECT.

If you can't provide evidences for the CAUSE beyond your belief, then you claiming that God being the CAUSE of anything is just wishful thinking and ignorant superstition.

This real world had a beginning.
Something set it into motion.

science would insist on a cause.
so do I.

Science, however, cannot offer the evidence.
No means to get back to the singularity and observe.

you have to think about it.

substance is not.....'self'.....motivated

 

[gnostic]

This real world had a beginning.
Something set it into motion.

You have no evidences to support that supposedly all-powerful divine being is involved in the real world, other than your wishful thinking and superstition.

Cause of the real world is more likely from natural causes, not your imaginary belief in a deity.

Do you know how ignorant you sound, everytime you repeated the motto "Let there be light" as if that mean anything other than repeating the silly author (of Genesis) don't know where light come from?

We know through science that the light that divide day and night is caused by our star shining on Earth that faces the sun, and that night is just the other side of Earth as the planet rotate.

Instead Genesis' first day have light and darkness, morning and evening, day and night, without the sun UNTIL the 4th day of creation. That clearly show the author was clueless as to why we have night and day. This is because Genesis 1 is a primitive creation myth.

As a myth or allegory, that's fine, for some Iron Age Israelites, who didn't understand how nature work back then. But it doesn't actually explain anything about the Earth or the Sun REALLY WORK. Nor do Genesis explain anything about animal or human biology or behaviour, or the biology of plants, because they were ignorant of all this.

So if I wanted to know anything about the stars or planets, or about biology, then I would seek in science, not in the bible or any other scriptures for that matter.

Science, however, cannot offer the evidence.
No means to get back to the singularity and observe.

When I said the real world, I was referring to here, on Earth. I wasn't talking about any singularity or the big bang cosmology.

 

[JoStories]

I think all religions, almost without exception, are dangerous in their assumptions because they purport that some imaginary friend somewhere answers fundamental questions about the universe and that means they stop looking for the actual answers.

That is a rather blanket statement, don't you think? There are many, like me for example, who continue to search for answers yet retain a belief in God. Furthermore, I make no assumptions nor do I push my own agenda here for anyone. My beliefs are just that, mine. I would never expect others to agree with me.

 

[leibowde84]

There is no argument there, you can demand valid reasoning all you want.

//knowledge is a big factor in noticing assumptions, because, assumptions can be thought of by people as ''facts'', even when they aren't. The only way to even notice many assumptions, is to know otherwise.

You are kind of all over the place here. Are you saying that assumptions can ONLY be noticed with knowledge of falsity? Because, that surely isn't the case. There are many times when I point out assumptions that I agree with, but notice that the one making this assumption has not done their research. In other words, it is blind faith. Whether their belief is correct or not is not as important as the work that goes into figuring out the history behind the assumption.

 

[JoStories]

I don't know some of the parables in the bible are good life guides is not all untruths .
Jesus was not a bad man in the bible seemed like a compassionate chap to myself.
Agreed is lots of crazy claims in that book but there are a lot of truths an it paints a true picture of human nature ,murder , deceit , lies , betrayal its all in there.
What if the bible started with something like , this is the way things could be.
A lot of folks maybe 90% take this religion thing way to seriously any way .Imho heaven needs do'ers an not timewasters .

Well said Speaker. I agree with you about the way that things could be, or perhaps even should be. But without the judgmental attitudes. Great post.

 

[ChristineES]

Assumptions can be false and they can also be true. I can assume I have $50 in my purse and then it turns out that I only have $20 and that would be embarrassing for me if I tried to buy something that cost more than $20. I can assume that a spokesman from Subway is a nice guy and then find out that he looks at child porn so my assumption falls flat.
But then, I can assume that my next door neighbor is the nicest man in the world and then he helps me when I am in trouble and I was correct, he is a kind man and his wife is a kind lady.

 

[sojourner]

Often in this forum I see many who make assumptions and, when questioned about their reasoning/evidence for doing so, they get defensive. Obviously, assumptions are a necessary part of human existence. But, when confronted with an assumption, I find it troubling when people refuse to either 1) provide a reasoned, substantiated argument for why they feel making the assumption is reasonable, and/or 2) complain that certain assumptions should not be questioned, usually when associated with religious beliefs/dogma.

My question is this ... is it admirable to be intolerant of assumptions like this, refusing to put-up with them by demanding a reasoned explanation based on facts rather than other unsubstantiated assumptions (for example, using passages from scripture to show that other passages in scripture are true)? Sometimes, when in these kinds of dialogues, I am simply trying to point out that an assumption is based on nothing more than subjective experience and faith. And, far too often, the individual is unwilling to admit this.

Is this form of intolerance something to be desired? Please provide a reasoned explanation for your response.

I dunno. When I post here, it's usually on limited time. I have a wealth of credible knowledge I've picked up, both from a graduate education and from working professionally in the field for, oh, 25 years or so. I generally don't post assumption, and I generally don't have either the time or inclination to reread my seminary books to find that one nugget of "proof" that's not going to impress anyone here anyway. What I get tired of is skepticism for sake of hearing one's head rattle, failing to take other's credentials at face value and wasting time with responses that are, essentially, "Oh, yeah?!"

 

[leibowde84]

I dunno. When I post here, it's usually on limited time. I have a wealth of credible knowledge I've picked up, both from a graduate education and from working professionally in the field for, oh, 25 years or so. I generally don't post assumption, and I generally don't have either the time or inclination to reread my seminary books to find that one nugget of "proof" that's not going to impress anyone here anyway. What I get tired of is skepticism for sake of hearing one's head rattle, failing to take other's credentials at face value and wasting time with responses that are, essentially, "Oh, yeah?!"

Do you really think it reasonable to expect anonymous users on a debate forum to take your credentials at face value? I feel that is a pretty unfair assumption, as anyone is free to claim any credential they want on this site, whether it is factual or not. Thus, I feel that offering your background/credentials as evidence should not be accepted without some kind of factual verification. Further, for those who actually do honestly want to learn from you, it doesn't do them much good unless you can provide reasoning and/or evidence for your claims. So, it kind of ends up being a bit disrespectful to them, even if unintentional.

 

[Cephus]

That is a rather blanket statement, don't you think? There are many, like me for example, who continue to search for answers yet retain a belief in God. Furthermore, I make no assumptions nor do I push my own agenda here for anyone. My beliefs are just that, mine. I would never expect others to agree with me.

But that's not how the majority of theists are and you know it. And once you have a belief that God did something, why keep looking for the actual cause, you're already convinced you've found it!

 

[Thief]

You have no evidences to support that supposedly all-powerful divine being is involved in the real world, other than your wishful thinking and superstition.

Cause of the real world is more likely from natural causes, not your imaginary belief in a deity.

Do you know how ignorant you sound, everytime you repeated the motto "Let there be light" as if that mean anything other than repeating the silly author (of Genesis) don't know where light come from?

We know through science that the light that divide day and night is caused by our star shining on Earth that faces the sun, and that night is just the other side of Earth as the planet rotate.

Instead Genesis' first day have light and darkness, morning and evening, day and night, without the sun UNTIL the 4th day of creation. That clearly show the author was clueless as to why we have night and day. This is because Genesis 1 is a primitive creation myth.

As a myth or allegory, that's fine, for some Iron Age Israelites, who didn't understand how nature work back then. But it doesn't actually explain anything about the Earth or the Sun REALLY WORK. Nor do Genesis explain anything about animal or human biology or behaviour, or the biology of plants, because they were ignorant of all this.

So if I wanted to know anything about the stars or planets, or about biology, then I would seek in science, not in the bible or any other scriptures for that matter.



When I said the real world, I was referring to here, on Earth. I wasn't talking about any singularity or the big bang cosmology.

I prefer science in the lead.
Cause and effect are part of the real world.....all the way back to the beginning.

At the point of singularity there is a choice to be made.
I find it easy to say...Spirit first.

Substance is not....'self' starting.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are kind of all over the place here. Are you saying that assumptions can ONLY be noticed with knowledge of falsity? Because, that surely isn't the case. There are many times when I point out assumptions that I agree with, but notice that the one making this assumption has not done their research. In other words, it is blind faith. Whether their belief is correct or not is not as important as the work that goes into figuring out the history behind the assumption.

A lot of ''research'' can be incorrect. This is a major issue in debates, not some occasional thing. I believe that expecting research to yield the same or correct answer to different people, on the same subject, is an unrealistic expectation, especially concerning religious matters.

I have to notice, you have not intoned, afaik, this problematic aspect of ''research''..I'm not sure if it's because your assuming it, or actually think it isn't prevalent in even very basic topics concerning Xianity or some other religious paradigms.

 

[JoStories]

But that's not how the majority of theists are and you know it. And once you have a belief that God did something, why keep looking for the actual cause, you're already convinced you've found it!

Not really. I can believe in God for reasons of my own and yet continue to search for answers. This is gray area here. We (generic We) have no proof of no God or God so the idea of continuing to search seems to me to make perfect sense. It could be that some day I will find its all physical and we are food for worms in which case, ok then. But if, OTOH, we find that there is God, well, that changes a lot. And yes most theists can be in your face types. For that, I am sorry.

 

[Cephus]

Not really. I can believe in God for reasons of my own and yet continue to search for answers. This is gray area here. We (generic We) have no proof of no God or God so the idea of continuing to search seems to me to make perfect sense. It could be that some day I will find its all physical and we are food for worms in which case, ok then. But if, OTOH, we find that there is God, well, that changes a lot. And yes most theists can be in your face types. For that, I am sorry.

But can you search for answers that don't include God? Can you search for answers that entirely reject the existence of God? I mean, we have no proof of leprechauns and no proof they don't exist, that doesn't make it okay to believe there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Rational people require objective evidence before they believe things exist. People who don't are, by definition, irrational. So the real question is, what could you find that would cause you to totally reject your belief in the supernatural? I'm quite clear what it would take to make me believe in it.