To the Anti-Religious

[Commoner]

You completely missed the point... But oh well.

If it was a good point, maybe you should explain it.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Hehe. I am already on record as conjecturing that in many decades belief in god and religion may well be looked on as a form of mental illness.

I look forward to the day when the very IDEA of supernatural religion is erased from human consciousness.

 

[DarkSun]

If it was a good point, maybe you should explain it.

Eventually.

 

[PureX]

No, Religion is a sitraction, if you are an atheist, you are most likely to have no spirituality (logical), and spirituality is a need for humans, so even if your faith is "false" you believe in something, which fulfils that need, which is why atheists are usually angry/depressed people (not insulting, just saying from experience) and will tend to attack religious people, why? well they are sure that religion is bad, but they see religious people and are jealous of their faith, since they (atheists) cannot equal that faith.

Religion is neccessary, even agnotism is a step closer to being mentaly healthy, then atheism

I sort of agree and sort of disagree. I think the frustration we see is not so much from a lack of spirituality, as a lack of faith in general.

We humans have to act on faith all the time, because we often don't have enough information to make a good educated guess as to the outcome of our actions. Or we simply don't want to see a good educated guess as to the outcome of our actions. And without being able to develop such an educated guess, and having to act, anyway, we then must act on faith.

But people who have very little practice with or understanding of faith find that frustrating. Hence, we see this almost worship of "logic". Logic becomes the magic totem that allows them to act safely in the illusion that they have made a good educated guess as to the outcome of their actions, and so they imagine that they don't need to act on faith. This is also why we see this tendency for atheists to imagine that they're really smarter than most other people, too. The more they can imagine that they know, the less they have to face their own ignorance, and having to deal with living life by faith.

It's all about the avoidance of faith action.

 

[Commoner]

I sort of agree and sort of disagree. I think the frustration we see is not so much from a lack of spirituality, as a lack of faith in general.

We humans have to act on faith all the time, because we often don't have enough information to make a good educated guess as to the outcome of our actions. Or we simply don't want to see a good educated guess as to the outcome of our actions. And without being able to develop such an educated guess, and having to act, anyway, we then must act on faith.

No, we don't have to act on faith - we act on the information we have, while recognizing we don't have the whole picture. Faith (in religion) is a completely different principle and I think you are deliberately failing to make that distinction.

But people who have very little practice with or understanding of faith find that frustrating. Hence, we see this almost worship of "logic". Logic becomes the magic totem that allows them to act safely in the illusion that they have made a good educated guess as to the outcome of their actions, and so they imagine that they don't need to act on faith. This is also why we see this tendency for atheists to imagine that they're really smarter than most other people, too. The more they can imagine that they know, the less they have to face their own ignorance, and having to deal with living life by faith. It's all about the avoidance of faith action.

This is where you yourself (probably not intentionaly) point out a distinction - the faith that you're describing is going against logic, deciding by what you want the outcome to be while disregarding facts - not coming to conclusions based on imperfect information - that's not faith of any kind.

Since you're a fan of the popular argument - if most atheist believe that they are smarter than other people (presumably theists), there might be something to it. I guess you have to be smart enough to recognize that you're smart. Wait...where have I heard this sort of argument before? Something with...faith? Hmm...

 

[PureX]

This is where you yourself (probably not intentionaly) point out a distinction - the faith that you're describing is going against logic

No, it picks up where logic runs out. In that sense it surpasses logic, but faith does not deny logic.

... deciding by what you want the outcome to be while disregarding facts - not coming to conclusions based on imperfect information - that's not faith of any kind.

I agree, it's not faith. But it seems that no matter how many times I have posted this, the atheists simply can't seem to grasp it. To them, faith is the defiance of logic. And this is a mantra they will not let go of.

But that isn't what faith is nor how faith works. Faith is simply making choices and taking action based on our hopes, when there is no further reliable information to go on.

Since you're a fan of the popular argument - if most atheist believe that they are smarter than other people (presumably theists), there might be something to it. I guess you have to be smart enough to recognize that you're smart. Where did I hear this sort of argument before? Something with...faith? Hmm...

There might be something to it ... until one investigates that idea. *smile*

 

[Commoner]

No, it picks up where logic runs out. In that sense it surpasses logic, but faith does not deny logic.

Oh, but PureX, you've disregarded logic many times to get to your conclusions.

I agree, it's not faith. But it seems that no matter how many times I have posted this, the atheists simply can't seem to grasp it. To them, faith is the defiance of logic. And this is a mantra they will not let go of.

I don't think you understood what I was refering to, when I said it wasn't faith - I was refering to making decisions based on imperfect information - the very action you call faith based.

We disagree with you, because to the rest of the world, faith means something entirely different that what you're defining it to be. Your interpretation of faith is so wide, in fact, that EVERYTHING is based on faith. You can say that, but you should also remind people of that when you use the word faith.

But that isn't what faith is nor how faith works. Faith is simply making choices and taking action based on our hopes, when there is no further reliable information to go on.

See, this is where we agree - that is faith. The problem is, those choices don't need to be made - the choices that we refer to as faith are never necessary - if they are, they are not faith anymore. If someone puts a gun to your head and flips a coin behind your back, demanding an answer - you don't decide on heads/tails because you have faith in the answer. That's where you confuse faith with making decision with imperfect information. That's not faith.

There might be something to it ... until one investigates that idea. *smile*

What I was getting at was the popular notion that you can't understand faith, unless you have faith - and that's why atheists can't "grasp it". Which is bullocks.

 

[themadhair]

From faith: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

Faith, n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

As noted above, the word has many different meanings which are being equivocated by some in this thread.

Example of why equivocation is a fallacy. A feather is light. Since light is the opposite of dark, there are no dark feathers.

 

[gnomon]

No, Religion is a sitraction, if you are an atheist, you are most likely to have no spirituality (logical), and spirituality is a need for humans, so even if your faith is "false" you believe in something, which fulfils that need, which is why atheists are usually angry/depressed people (not insulting, just saying from experience) and will tend to attack religious people, why? well they are sure that religion is bad, but they see religious people and are jealous of their faith, since they (atheists) cannot equal that faith.

Religion is neccessary, even agnotism is a step closer to being mentaly healthy, then atheism

Spirituality is not a need.

To this date I have yet to see an atheist attack a religious person. Being challenging and confrontational is usually what religious believers call an attack.

I believe a remark about the world's tiniest violin comes next.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Spirituality is not a need.

To this date I have yet to see an atheist attack a religious person. Being challenging and confrontational is usually what religious believers call an attack.

I believe a remark about the world's tiniest violin comes next.

For most challenging the tenets of their beliefs is seen as an attack. That is because in their world you are either a believer or Evil.

 

[Vile Atheist]

But people who have very little practice with or understanding of faith find that frustrating. Hence, we see this almost worship of "logic". Logic becomes the magic totem that allows them to act safely in the illusion that they have made a good educated guess as to the outcome of their actions, and so they imagine that they don't need to act on faith. This is also why we see this tendency for atheists to imagine that they're really smarter than most other people, too. The more they can imagine that they know, the less they have to face their own ignorance, and having to deal with living life by faith.

It's all about the avoidance of faith action.

Your generalization and caricaturization of atheists is unfounded. Whether or not that is the case (and I don't think it is) you have not met enough of the millions upon millions of atheists in this world to make that generalization. There are other generalizations you CAN make. But that's not one of them. Most of the atheists I know merely grumble "Religion is BS", but they don't actually confront theists. They don't actively take measures to debunk whatever "BS du Jour" a particular theist wants to present, unless they are confronted themselves. In general, my atheist friends are indifferent towards religion. They see it as BS but don't particularly care about the beliefs of its followers enough to actively dissent.

Logic DOES allow us to make good, educated guesses. It allows us to predict an outcome based on previous experience. If A, then B which follows from A. For example. A child may have not been told "Do not touch a hot stove". Not knowing that information, the child touches the stove and gets burned. In the future, the child makes the connection that if I touch a hot stove (A), then I get burned (B) as a result of touching the stove. And they can extend this. They can use a generalization to extend this to all hot objects. Even though they haven't been given that information "Do not touch an open flame", for example, they use their experience from the stove to predict what COULD happen. We just don't think about it much because most of these thought processes are subconscious. Now let's apply this to the God concept.

The only way we can gather any information is through the use of our senses and use of logic (which I have just demonstrated). No senses and no logic = no information. Thus, in order to know the existence of something, we must be able to sense it and to logically conclude it exists. Logic can be flawed, but it is still excellent at making educated guesses. Logic has to be supported by empirical evidence for us to know something exists.

We have not seen God, touched or felt God, smelled God, heard God, or tasted God (other than the form of a flat, dry cracker) all in any objective way. We can gather no information about God through our senses. If this information was available in an objective way, the only atheists and agnostics remaining would be irrational. Thus, we must rely on logic to even begin to postulate the existence of any deity.

If any deity exists in the natural world, we would be able to acquire information from our senses about it. If that God merely chose to hide itself from human detection, then even if that God exists, he is an irrelevant being. In any case, nobody would be able to logically postulate its existence because we have no other comparable concept that we can make comparisons and draw conclusions from. Nor would God serve to explain anything. God created everything? We have plausible naturalistic explanations for the existence of the universe. And if God did create everything, what created God? So why are the plausible naturalistic explanations not treated with the same, or even greater level of acceptance? And why have theists yet to show that God can transcend time (or whatever weasel excuse employed to hand-wave away the problem of God being created). God is omnipotent so therefore can transcend time? Then show God is omnipotent. God created everything and is therefore omnipotent? Then demonstrate that God created everything.

If a deity exists in the supernatural world and the supernatural world alone, again, we can not gather any information from our senses about the supernatural. Nor can we use logic to postulate its existence. For I would be equally justified as any theist claiming the existence of any deity in saying that "I believe in the God OmarKhayyam who exists only in the Zogrelian world. The Zogrelian world cannot be observed by science. I cannot validate his existence therefore, and so I rely on faith. OmarKhayyam created everything we know of."

What is the qualitative difference between the two beliefs? They are equally validated and make the same basic claims. Pile on evidence on how religions develop and why they develop, pile on evidence of neurology on why people believe in religion. Pile on evidence of psychology on defense-mechanisms and coping mechanisms.

Now the picture starts to unravel. Religion is man-made and so are the deities placed on their respective pedestals.