It's All About That Faith, Bout That Faith

[Draka]

But going back to what I originally said, once you have knowledge, faith becomes redundant. I have no need to have faith in the speed of light, I have knowledge about the speed of light. Faith means nothing once you have knowledge. Faith is believing without evidence. I'd much rather have the evidence and not need faith at all.

Semantics problem here. Thing is, what people have faith in, when it comes to beliefs, there is often a reason for. They have attained some of what they consider knowledge and they seek out more. Semantics problem lies herein, while people have various reasons, personal experience they qualify as their "knowledge" of something, others will sit back and claim that if you can't scientifically test something it isn't evidence. Which just isn't true. One can say they have faith in something because of the evidence that has been shown them time and time again. It may not be evidence that they can duplicate at will, but doesn't mean it wasn't there. One can have faith that something exists or will be there or something will happen, because they have their own evidence that has led them to that conclusion. they have a certain knowledge about something that leads them to believe and have faith that it is true.

 

[Cephus]

Semantics problem here. Thing is, what people have faith in, when it comes to beliefs, there is often a reason for. They have attained some of what they consider knowledge and they seek out more. Semantics problem lies herein, while people have various reasons, personal experience they qualify as their "knowledge" of something, others will sit back and claim that if you can't scientifically test something it isn't evidence. Which just isn't true. One can say they have faith in something because of the evidence that has been shown them time and time again. It may not be evidence that they can duplicate at will, but doesn't mean it wasn't there. One can have faith that something exists or will be there or something will happen, because they have their own evidence that has led them to that conclusion. they have a certain knowledge about something that leads them to believe and have faith that it is true.

But semantics matters. Lots of people assert knowledge when they have nothing of the sort, they demand that they have certitude when they cannot possibly have it. People need to take a big step back and consider how they "know" things that they think they know and why do they think they know it? What you're really saying is that some people are irrational. No kidding, really? But while that might be true, that doesn't mean that it's something we ought to throw our hands up at and figure can't be improved. Some people are racist too, that doesn't mean we just ignore it and pretend it can't be fixed. We have to raise our expectations, not allow them to wallow in the realm of the lowest possible denominator. These people do not have certain knowledge, they don't have any knowledge, they have blind faith in something that emotionally appeals to them.

 

[Draka]

But semantics matters. Lots of people assert knowledge when they have nothing of the sort, they demand that they have certitude when they cannot possibly have it. People need to take a big step back and consider how they "know" things that they think they know and why do they think they know it? What you're really saying is that some people are irrational. No kidding, really? But while that might be true, that doesn't mean that it's something we ought to throw our hands up at and figure can't be improved. Some people are racist too, that doesn't mean we just ignore it and pretend it can't be fixed. We have to raise our expectations, not allow them to wallow in the realm of the lowest possible denominator. These people do not have certain knowledge, they don't have any knowledge, they have blind faith in something that emotionally appeals to them.

No, simply not so. You, for all your "knowledge" and "fact", simply don't get it. If one has such an experience, that they have tried to explain away in many different fashions, logically, rationally, and with skepticism, but can find no other way to explain it other than having some sort of "spiritual" experience, that, to them, becomes proof that there is something else not testable out there. You have enough of these experiences and you have at least some "knowledge" (the knowing of something) that others do not. It cannot be tested, it is personal, so one grows to believe...to have faith...that certain conclusions they have reached because of said experiences hold some kind of "truth" to them. No, it cannot ever be scientifically proven, but to the person whom had such experiences it doesn't matter. Usually they aren't out to prove anything to anyone else either.

I am not saying anyone is irrational, as a matter of fact, I am saying they were brought to such beliefs often by rational thought. I am certainly not daring to compare theists to racists though. That sheer and utter bit of stupidity is entirely upon you.

 

[Sapiens]

... If one has such an experience, that they have tried to explain away in many different fashions, logically, rationally, and with skepticism, but can find no other way to explain it other than having some sort of "spiritual" experience, that, to them, becomes proof that there is something else not testable out there. ...

I seem to recall David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) having a spirtual experience that resulted in a demon that possessed his neighbor's dog commanded him to kill. Six dead and seven wounded (at least). How was his spiritual experience discernibly different?

 

[Cephus]

No, simply not so. You, for all your "knowledge" and "fact", simply don't get it. If one has such an experience, that they have tried to explain away in many different fashions, logically, rationally, and with skepticism, but can find no other way to explain it other than having some sort of "spiritual" experience, that, to them, becomes proof that there is something else not testable out there. You have enough of these experiences and you have at least some "knowledge" (the knowing of something) that others do not. It cannot be tested, it is personal, so one grows to believe...to have faith...that certain conclusions they have reached because of said experiences hold some kind of "truth" to them. No, it cannot ever be scientifically proven, but to the person whom had such experiences it doesn't matter. Usually they aren't out to prove anything to anyone else either.

It doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter how many options one has tried and rejected as indefensible, until you find one that actually can be demonstrably tied to the event, the only rational answer will remain "I don't know." The question remains unanswered until you actually find an answer, there is no point, no matter how many potential answers you've rejected, where you are ever rationally justified just making something up. Until someone can come up with objective evidence that God is actually real, no answer involving God will ever be rational. It doesn't matter the emotional state of the believer or their desire to convince others, we're talking about the rationality of their beliefs.

I am not saying anyone is irrational, as a matter of fact, I am saying they were brought to such beliefs often by rational thought. I am certainly not daring to compare theists to racists though. That sheer and utter bit of stupidity is entirely upon you.

But they were *NEVER* brought to any of those thoughts rationally. Not once. If they were brought to them rationally, as opposed to emotionally, they wouldn't hold the beliefs they do. You cannot follow a wholly rational path and come to a wholly irrational conclusion but that's exactly what you're suggesting. There are people out there, now that you brought it up tangentially, that are Holocaust deniers. They believe, based on whatever path they've taken, that the Holocaust never happened. They do not do this based on reason, they do so based on emotion. I've debated enough Holocaust deniers in my life to see that all of them, without exception, accept that proposition for emotional reasons. Either they have racist beliefs and don't want to admit it happened or they simply cannot bring themselves to believe that anyone could ever do that to another human being, but these are not rational positions, they are not come to by logically evaluating the available evidence and coming to the best supported conclusion, any more than belief in gods is. It doesn't matter how many people believe this stuff, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy for a reason and can never be used to justify a rationally held belief.

 

[Draka]

I seem to recall David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) having a spirtual experience that resulted in a demon that possessed his neighbor's dog commanded him to kill. Six dead and seven wounded (at least). How was his spiritual experience discernibly different?

Do you know if he tried to rationalize anything about what he thought he experienced? Was he in any way mentally ill or incapacitated? Did he try to compare his experience with others? I don't know these things so I can't answer really. Do you know them? Do you know if he had history of hallucinations or delusions? Without such information such determinations are not easy to make.

 

[Drolefille]

Ooh Yay we're on the "theists are crazy" train. My favorite.

 

[Draka]

@Cephus You seem utterly dead set on the impossibility of theists using rational thought. You appear to be making a claim that is essentially "the vast majority of the population of Earth are irrational, but me, I belong to the rational group. If someone does see things the way I do they are obviously irrational". This is a trap many atheists fall into. The false belief that they are somehow in some rational and intellectual class above theists merely for the fact that they don't beleive. So incomprehensible is it that someone, someone intelligent and rational, could come to a conclusion different from yours, that you refuse to even acknowledge that you could be wrong. You know what? I could be wrong, I have numerous reasons why I believe what I do, but I also know they cannot be confirmed, so I "believe". You know what else? You could be wrong too. For the same reason as me. These things cannot be proven and you don't know. There is no certainty here, not in this. So to adamantly hold that someone is entirely wrong and you are entirely right...an absurd and illogical stance to hold.

 

[Cephus]

@Cephus You seem utterly dead set on the impossibility of theists using rational thought. You appear to be making a claim that is essentially "the vast majority of the population of Earth are irrational, but me, I belong to the rational group. If someone does see things the way I do they are obviously irrational". This is a trap many atheists fall into. The false belief that they are somehow in some rational and intellectual class above theists merely for the fact that they don't beleive. So incomprehensible is it that someone, someone intelligent and rational, could come to a conclusion different from yours, that you refuse to even acknowledge that you could be wrong. You know what? I could be wrong, I have numerous reasons why I believe what I do, but I also know they cannot be confirmed, so I "believe". You know what else? You could be wrong too. For the same reason as me. These things cannot be proven and you don't know. There is no certainty here, not in this. So to adamantly hold that someone is entirely wrong and you are entirely right...an absurd and illogical stance to hold.

And right into the argumentum ad populum fallacy that I predicted.

 

[Drolefille]

Ah the fallacy naming game where we pretend that knowing the name of a fallacy mean we're right. My second favorite choochoo.

@Sunstone save me!

 

[Sapiens]

Do you know if he tried to rationalize anything about what he thought he experienced? Was he in any way mentally ill or incapacitated?

I assume that he was nuttier than a fruitcake, but what I'm asking is how was he any crazier than your average believer except for his self control circuitry,

Did he try to compare his experience with others? I don't know these things so I can't answer really. Do you know them?

I have no idea.

Do you know if he had history of hallucinations or delusions? Without such information such determinations are not easy to make.

Is his talking to the demon in his neighbor's dog discernibly different from the folks here that claim to talk to God, to Jesus, or to the Holy Spirit? The instructions that he received may be different, but how can we decide which conversation is delusional? Or are both?

 

[Sapiens]

Ah the fallacy naming game where we pretend that knowing the name of a fallacy mean we're right. My second favorite choochoo.

@Sunstone save me!

No, the fallacy naming game makes the claim that you are wrong, not that I am right. Hope it hasn't been your fave for too long, it's hard to part from long held mis-beliefs.

 

[Draka]

And right into the argumentum ad populum fallacy that I predicted.

You obviously didn't read for comprehension. I wasn't arguing that "since there are all these theists they must be right", I was pointing out the sheer narcissism it takes to just up and declare so many people you don't even know "irrational" and putting yourself in a category above them on an intellectual and rationality level. Which is exactly what you do when you speak the way you do.

 

[Drolefille]

No, the fallacy naming game makes the claim that you are wrong, not that I am right. Hope it hasn't been your fave for too long, it's hard to part from long held mis-beliefs.

Yes and in a debate "you" being wrong makes "me" right.
Also for reading comprehension, it's my second favorite game, sarcastically of course.

The fallacy gotcha game is not an actual argument, it's just buzzwords. And frequently misused which is why I asked @Sunstone to save us as he actually knows what he's talking about. Similarly the "Theists are inherently irrational" argument is ridiculous.

Additionally I want faith in something but feel I have to know it's true before I have faith in it. I don't consider these two things to be contradictory, insisting that they are makes no sense. It's like non-Christians insisting Christians have to be literalists. You're an outsider defining someone else's experience.

 

[Cephus]

You obviously didn't read for comprehension. I wasn't arguing that "since there are all these theists they must be right", I was pointing out the sheer narcissism it takes to just up and declare so many people you don't even know "irrational" and putting yourself in a category above them on an intellectual and rationality level. Which is exactly what you do when you speak the way you do.

People act rationally when they follow evidence to a conclusion, unburdened by emotional desires and wishful thinking. If you can find me a single theist anywhere that has done just that, I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes and in a debate "you" being wrong makes "me" right.
Also for reading comprehension, it's my second favorite game, sarcastically of course.

The fallacy gotcha game is not an actual argument, it's just buzzwords. And frequently misused which is why I asked @Sunstone to save us as he actually knows what he's talking about. Similarly the "Theists are inherently irrational" argument is ridiculous.

Additionally I want faith in something but feel I have to know it's true before I have faith in it. I don't consider these two things to be contradictory, insisting that they are makes no sense. It's like non-Christians insisting Christians have to be literalists. You're an outsider defining someone else's experience.

You really like this game but you don't know how to play, that's a false dichotomy.

 

[Drolefille]

You really like this game but you don't know how to play, that's a false dichotomy.

No, just accurately, in my opinion, assessing the implication of playing fallacy games. (Something by the by, I'm not doing, so unless you're rolling up a D&D character you're off the mark about games I play.)

And while you at least respond which is better than the OP, you're not addressing the topic, so the posts are more pointless than the original "theists are crazy" sidebar. And since "Theists are irrational" (not even "theism is irrational") has since been doubled down on, you're swinging at shadows.

 

[Cephus]

No, just accurately, in my opinion, assessing the implication of playing fallacy games. (Something by the by, I'm not doing, so unless you're rolling up a D&D character you're off the mark about games I play.)

And while you at least respond which is better than the OP, you're not addressing the topic, so the posts are more pointless than the original "theists are crazy" sidebar. And since "Theists are irrational" (not even "theism is irrational") has since been doubled down on, you're swinging at shadows.

You can keep denying it all you want but the definition of "irrational" is "not in accordance with reason", which accurately describes religious beliefs.

 

[Drolefille]

You can keep denying it all you want but the definition of "irrational" is "not in accordance with reason", which accurately describes religious beliefs.

Theism and Theists are two different concepts. You're still arguing superiority for yourself over others and it's boring. If you want to discuss my agnosticism, feel free to ask me questions in the Seekers DIR in my thread there. Otherwise, *yawn*

 

[Cephus]

Theism and Theists are two different concepts. You're still arguing superiority for yourself over others and it's boring. If you want to discuss my agnosticism, feel free to ask me questions in the Seekers DIR in my thread there. Otherwise, *yawn*

Theists are people who practice theism. The actions and thus the beliefs involved with theism are irrational and the people who practice those actions and beliefs are being irrational in their practice. Accommodationism is nothing to be proud of.