the right religion

[Enai de a lukal]

I just stated that my religion is right for me...

And while that may well be true, this doesn't imply that it is "right" in the sense of being true or factual.

... so I have no idea why you are choosing to bicker with me (yes, you are bickering) because I believe in various gods/forces/powers.

Because I disagree with you, and this is a debate forum. What part about that don't you understand?

... nothing I said was pushy or anything like that.

That's not relevant. Generally, in a debate or discussion, people exchange arguments and criticisms, not because anyone is being pushy, but because they disagree with someone else's claims.

You are just one of those anti-theists that is as bad as religious fundamentalism in your black and white beliefs.

Hardly. In any case, you have no basis for thinking this, simply because I've expressed my views and argued for them (and taken exception to views I find mistaken)- have I mentioned that this is the debate section of the forum?

Please, go be an *** to someone else. I'm not interested. I'm going to ignore you from now on.

Here's a hint: if you're too sensitive to handle someone criticizing your statements, don't post them on an internet debate board. (duh...)

 

[1robin]

I am replying to you with pure fact.

Again -

You both decide what is right based on your individual thoughts, beliefs, upbringing, life experiences, etc. It is only "right" to you individually.

How you chose your direction, is no different then how he chose his.

Whether you like to think so, or not.

*

You can't decide anything into being right. You have no justification for attempting to limit what I may ask another poster.

 

[1robin]

There is no true religion outside of you, true religion is only found within, if you believe your religion is better than others, you better think again.

How do you know this? I swear lately it has been one unbroken stream of attempts to assert reality into existence. You can't know this.

 

[1robin]

... Because they're all more or less rubbish?

I am forced to keep saying the same thing because the same invalid thing is claimed over and over. "How do you know this? I swear lately it has been one unbroken stream of attempts to assert reality into existence. You can't know this."

 

[1robin]

Personal experience and study. It is highly subjective. I am interested in what is true to me. What is true to you may differ.

How are things true for you in fact? Things are objectively true or not. Since I do not seem to be able to make myself clear let me state it another way. If you decide something is true for you without knowing (or at least having sufficient reason to believe it is objectively true) if it actually is true of what value is it? I can't imagine a less valuable thing or a more counter productive concept than a religion that is based on convenience and not objective reality. Let me ask another way. Do you believe Satanism is actually true?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

How do you know this? I swear lately it has been one unbroken stream of attempts to assert reality into existence. You can't know this.

But you can know that God is in his heaven. And that he came down and impregnated a human woman who gave birth to God's son, who then rampaged through the temple, got executed for it, and rose from human death to reunite with his GodFather in Heaven.

I dunno. To me it seems that people can know whatever they want to know, including that there are no gods or that there are bunches of gods.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I am forced to keep saying the same thing because the same invalid thing is claimed over and over. "How do you know this? I swear lately it has been one unbroken stream of attempts to assert reality into existence. You can't know this."

Well, if one was acquainted with all major religions, one would be in a position to make such a claim. Or, if it could be shown that there is some essential and necessary feature of religion that makes it rubbish.

But clearly you failed to appreciate the tone of my post; I was only half-serious, if even that much (I thought the grinning face made it clear the comment was meant in a spirit of humor). You really need to read more carefully.

 

[Cephus]

I don't see any rational examination of religious beliefs coming from him. Just a bunch of bashing and "you're wrong because I say so!". It's the same behavior that religious fundamentalists exhibit. I suppose you could say that he's an evangelical anti-theist. He's the same as any other evangelist. The only difference is the brand of the product they're trying to foist on you.

I don't see *ANYONE* examining religion rationally, especially not the religious. These are people who hold a belief emotionally and are incapable or at least unwilling to examine it dispassionately. It doesn't matter if it's a fundamentalist or a liberal theist, all of them hold their beliefs because it feels good to do so, not because they've ever looked at their beliefs to find out if they are objectively and factually true. In fact, the more liberal they tend to get, the less they even care if their beliefs are true, which strikes me as wholly bizarre. You think you're following the one true god of the universe who can send you to hell if you don't do the right things and you don't even care if you're right? Seriously? :thud:

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't see *ANYONE* examining religion rationally, especially not the religious. These are people who hold a belief emotionally and are incapable or at least unwilling to examine it dispassionately. It doesn't matter if it's a fundamentalist or a liberal theist, all of them hold their beliefs because it feels good to do so, not because they've ever looked at their beliefs to find out if they are objectively and factually true.

On what basis are you making such a sweeping statement?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I don't see *ANYONE* examining religion rationally, especially not the religious. These are people who hold a belief emotionally and are incapable or at least unwilling to examine it dispassionately. It doesn't matter if it's a fundamentalist or a liberal theist, all of them hold their beliefs because it feels good to do so, not because they've ever looked at their beliefs to find out if they are objectively and factually true. In fact, the more liberal they tend to get, the less they even care if their beliefs are true, which strikes me as wholly bizarre. You think you're following the one true god of the universe who can send you to hell if you don't do the right things and you don't even care if you're right? Seriously? :thud:

I don't know I have a rather liberal outview, and find the whole loving your enemies, love your neighbor, helping the poor, being meek, pushing for peace to be some good lessons to strive for and a good way of showing your belief in God. I also find following those instructions rational.

Even liberally it doesn't mean you have to look at the bible as infallible, I see it as mans attempt to understand God.

There's also the deist view which simply has a creator who just did that...create.

I'm sure there are more views to God then what you posed. While of course they may not seem rational to you...I've found that rational is more subjective than objective.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't see any rational examination of religious beliefs coming from him.

Then you need to look more carefully.

I suppose you could say that he's an evangelical anti-theist.

You could- but you would be wrong.

 

[Cephus]

On what basis are you making such a sweeping statement?

Produce anyone who can actually provide objective evidence for their supernatural god and you'll have proven me wrong. No theist anywhere can provide a rational reason to believe in a god and present the logical steps that can be taken to find this god from point A to point B, etc.

 

[Cephus]

I don't know I have a rather liberal outview, and find the whole loving your enemies, love your neighbor, helping the poor, being meek, pushing for peace to be some good lessons to strive for and a good way of showing your belief in God. I also find following those instructions rational.

But you don't need a god for that, you can just do that on your own. In fact, I'd argue that being religious makes it even less likely to be able to do the above, given the rampant religious violence worldwide.

Even liberally it doesn't mean you have to look at the bible as infallible, I see it as mans attempt to understand God.

No, it's man's attempt to answer questions and stamp a "God" label on it. And no, the Bible isn't even close to infallible, it's full of contradictions, fallacies and outright nonsense, why anyone takes it seriously is beyond me.

There's also the deist view which simply has a creator who just did that...create.

Yes, and then went away and never had any care for humanity. There's no point in worshiping such a deity. There is no heaven, there is no hell, there is no sin, there is no credit given for living a certain lifestyle, a deistic deity doesn't care.

I'm sure there are more views to God then what you posed. While of course they may not seem rational to you...I've found that rational is more subjective than objective.

There are lots of views of God, but none of them have been demonstrated to be any more valid than any others.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Produce anyone who can actually provide objective evidence for their supernatural god and you'll have proven me wrong. No theist anywhere can provide a rational reason to believe in a god and present the logical steps that can be taken to find this god from point A to point B, etc.

That's isn't exactly the question though; the question is whether there are any religious people who hold the (religious) beliefs that they do for rational reasons, based on an assessment of the evidence rather than for "emotional reasons". You said-

It doesn't matter if it's a fundamentalist or a liberal theist, all of them hold their beliefs because it feels good to do so, not because they've ever looked at their beliefs to find out if they are objectively and factually true.

Which is patently false- the entire genre of apologetics and natural theology belies this claim. Now, someone who believes in God because of, say, the apparent evidence of design in nature, or on the basis of deductive natural theological arguments, is still basing their beliefs on a rational process of examining the evidence- you may well disagree with their assessment (and rightly so!) and ultimate conclusion, but this doesn't mean that they haven't performed a rational assessment nonetheless.

On the other hand, there likely are plenty of people who hold their beliefs for emotional reasons- like certain people who convert to a religion after a tragedy- and even someone who holds their religious beliefs on rational (if ultimately mistaken) grounds may be emotionally attached to their beliefs. But this in itself is no sin; many professional academics are emotionally attached to one of their theories or positions, and should be disappointed to see it refuted (it is their creation, their work, after all)- this is only problematic if one is willing to deceive oneself or others in order to protect this belief from falsification (such as by ignoring crucial and contradictory evidence).

 

[Cephus]

That's isn't exactly the question though; the question is whether there are any religious people who hold the (religious) beliefs that they do for rational reasons, based on an assessment of the evidence rather than for "emotional reasons".

If a drunk person, seeing the room filled with pink elephants, grabs a gun and starts blasting the place, is that a belief based on rational reasons? After all, he "saw" pink elephants, he may have felt frightened (the risk of being stomped by pink pachyderms could do that), were his actions rational?

Of course not.

Which is patently false- the entire genre of apologetics and natural theology belies this claim. Now, someone who believes in God because of, say, the apparent evidence of design in nature, or on the basis of deductive natural theological arguments, is still basing their beliefs on a rational process of examining the evidence- you may well disagree with their assessment (and rightly so!) and ultimate conclusion, but this doesn't mean that they haven't performed a rational assessment nonetheless.

Natural theology and natural law and the like are all just a bunch of emotional nonsense, let's not go there. Apologetics is not the practice of demonstrating the validity of a belief to non-believers, it is a bunch of fast-talking hooey designed to appeal on an emotional level, not on a rational level. The fact is, there are very few apologists who actually examine the evidence, they don't question the validity of the Bible, they don't demand actual evidence for the existence of God, they have just as much faith, perhaps more, they just try to cherry pick the evidence to make the best case for their preconceived notions as they can.

On the other hand, there likely are plenty of people who hold their beliefs for emotional reasons- like certain people who convert to a religion after a tragedy- and even someone who holds their religious beliefs on rational (if ultimately mistaken) grounds may be emotionally attached to their beliefs. But this in itself is no sin; many professional academics are emotionally attached to one of their theories or positions, and should be disappointed to see it refuted (it is their creation, their work, after all)- this is only problematic if one is willing to deceive oneself or others in order to protect this belief from falsification (such as by ignoring crucial and contradictory evidence).

As in my example, the belief in something does not make that thing true in reality. Just because you can point to lots and lots and lots of drunks who see pink elephants, that doesn't mean there are actually pink elephants out there. Holding these unjustified beliefs may be comforting, it may make you feel good, but it doesn't make it actually so.

I'm really only concerned with what is actually so. I want to work out how we get from point A (an assertion about a thing) to point B (a logical reason to believe that a thing actually exists). Theists, almost entirely, are stuck at point A and are terrified to take that next step.

 

[1robin]

But you can know that God is in his heaven. And that he came down and impregnated a human woman who gave birth to God's son, who then rampaged through the temple, got executed for it, and rose from human death to reunite with his GodFather in Heaven.

I do not know any of this. I do not remember ever claiming I did. I believe it based on good evidence.

I dunno. To me it seems that people can know whatever they want to know, including that there are no gods or that there are bunches of gods.

Can you know if life exists anywhere else in the universe by will power?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If a drunk person, seeing the room filled with pink elephants, grabs a gun and starts blasting the place, is that a belief based on rational reasons? After all, he "saw" pink elephants, he may have felt frightened (the risk of being stomped by pink pachyderms could do that), were his actions rational?

Of course not.

Why "of course not"? They only seem unreasonable to us, because we know that there were no pink elephants, and his perception was not reliable at that time (although I can't imagine what sort of booze he was drinking to have hallucinations- I want some of that!). However, if he genuinely perceived pink elephants and (presumably) felt that his life was in danger, then defending himself would be perfectly reasonable- it was warranted given the information he had available to him at the time.

But this is a terrible example and is not analogous to religious belief- it is not as if atheists are able to somehow step out of the situation and see the matter with a birds-eye (or perhaps God's-eye) view and objectively determine what is the case here- as the sober person is in your example. Unlike the sober person, who knows that the man seeing pink elephants is drunk and hallucinating, atheists don't have any privileged access to the truth in this case. Even though we disagree with their judgment of the evidence, we cannot say that their belief is not the result of rational rather than emotional reasons.

Natural theology and natural law and the like are all just a bunch of emotional nonsense, let's not go there.

Well, since they are eminently pertinent, as an obvious counter-example to your assertion, we sort of have to.

Apologetics is not the practice of demonstrating the validity of a belief to non-believers, it is a bunch of fast-talking hooey designed to appeal on an emotional level, not on a rational level.

Again, this is prima facie false. The reasons adduced by natural theology for belief in God are arguments, reasons- not appeals to emotion in any obvious sense at all. Tell me, what appeals to emotion does the cosmological argument make?

As in my example, the belief in something does not make that thing true in reality.

And whether it is "true in reality" is not relevant- all that we're concerned with here is the basis or justification for holding the belief; not whether it is ultimately true. One can believe some rationally, and for rational rather than emotional reasons, and nevertheless be mistaken. These are not mutually exclusive.

I'm really only concerned with what is actually so.

Well, then you have to abandon your previous claims about theist's motivations for belief in God. If you're concerned with what actually is the case, then the basis or motivation for a belief is not relevant. You need to make up your mind here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I do not know any of this. I do not remember ever claiming I did. I believe it based on good evidence.

There's no difference between belief and knowledge. That's just language tricking us.

Can you know if life exists anywhere else in the universe by will power?

Easy. I can know anything I want to know, just like everyone else can.

(And how else do we know things except by an act of will?)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There's no difference between belief and knowledge. That's just language tricking us.

Are you just trolling, or what? Clearly there is a difference between belief and knowledge.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Are you just trolling, or what? Clearly there is a difference between belief and knowledge.

I'm pretty sure you're just confused, but I'll be happy to listen if you'd like to make a case for the difference between knowing something and believing something.

It's the same difference as between trotting and jogging, yes?