Where Do You Put Your Faith?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am never correct.

A self-reinforcing echo-chamber

You're both taking this much too personally. What's your objection? That I don't respect what you consider sacred? Do you think that I should censor such opinions because they offend you? If so, why? Your emotional reactions are your responsibility to manage and police, not mine. Keep your opinions about what you object to in me to yourselves if you can, and we'll be just fine. If that's going to be a problem for you, maybe you two should put me on ignore.

 

[dybmh]

What's your objection?

That you do not listen. You don't admit it when someone makes a good point. You preach like it's sunday at an atheist church.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That you do not listen. You don't admit it when someone makes a good point. You preach like it's sunday at an atheist church.

You're agitated because you think you make good points that don't get enough praise from me, and think my posts are sermons?

Why do you want affirmation from me?

And I don't remember any good points from you. As I recall, your beef with me a few months back is that I told you that I don't believe people experience gods when they say they do, but rather, their own minds, that spiritual experiences are endogenous and not sensing something outside of the head, and my evidence included having experienced such experiences myself and misunderstood them then. This annoyed you. You resented the attitude. You didn't merely disagree or fail to be convinced by my words, you acted as if you were hurt. You expressed not just dissent, but resentment as well. Those are the points I remember you making.

And it seems you'd like me to modify my posting behavior to bother you less. I write what I write with conviction. I feel passionately about some of these topics just like you do. I feel a responsibility to join in on the growing effort to dampen the effect of religion and make the argument against belief by faith. I understand that these things are good and holy to you. Try to understand that they not only aren't that to me, I see them as problems. Entering the marketplace of ideas as you have done by signing in to RF exposes you to people with opinions you might not like.

Like I said, your emotional responses to them are your responsibility. If my posting upsets you, then your choices are to continue complaining, learn to control your response, or put me on ignore.

I don't understand why my words get you in a lather. Yours have no such effect on me even when you try to get a rise. I understand why you made the church reference. You're hoping it offends me and creates a dysphoric experience for me upon reading it. You want some kind of payback for feeling that way yourself.

I'm telling you how to deal with it (this is me preaching now). Best choice is to learn to not care about the kinds of things you mentioned, which ought to be easy with a little reflection. Next best is to put me on ignore. The only remaining alternative for you is to keep reading my words and getting upset over them. Pick your favorite.

 

[nPeace]

I don't care enough to argue over the abstract human concept of love, a product of evolution, like every other human emotion. Fear hate love etc..all naturalistic in origin. Nothing magical or spiritual about them. Nothing to discuss.

Then you would be quite wrong to tell me that, so don't. If it is not physical, in that it has no measurable parameters. Like length or mass or temperature. Then it by definition, does not exist. It has no measurable qualities. It is for all intents and purposes, outside the boundaries of verifiable observation, it is objectively, not real. Like Santa Claus or any other deity.

Just claiming something and wanting eople to accept it, on the basis that you said it, does not sound like someone who accepts the challenge to examine their beliefs, critically and with as little emotive bias as possible, as objectively as possible.

I know that hunger, thirst, love, a sense of right and wrong, are all real.
I also know that science cannot measure nor tell me a whole lot of stuff.
So if you are one of those Scientism fanatics, then we have met a roadblock, and it's due to strong emotional bias... but not on my end.

 

[nPeace]

You do not listen... You preach like it's sunday at an atheist church.

I could not have said it any better.

 

[dybmh]

You're agitated because

You asked a question and I answered. Your behavior is what I would describe as typical not agitating. You're easy to ignore.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just claiming something and wanting eople to accept it, on the basis that you said it, does not sound like someone who accepts the challenge to examine their beliefs, critically and with as little emotive bias as possible, as objectively as possible.

I know that hunger, thirst, love, a sense of right and wrong, are all real.
I also know that science cannot measure nor tell me a whole lot of stuff.
So if you are one of those Scientism fanatics, then we have met a roadblock, and it's due to strong emotional bias... but not on my end.

This "scientism" nonsense starts to feel like some species of Godwin argument.
It seems like creationists tend to invoke it whenever they are cornered and can't argue against the science any more...
They'll then accuse people of "scientism" in an attempt to dodge the points made.

 

[Kfox]

"Empirical evidence" isn't the definer or decider of all intellectual value. It isn't even a prime consideration for most people. I doubt, even, that it's your own.

We're not talking about intellect value, we're talking about whether or not it is reasonable to believe something will happen

 

[nPeace]

You asked a question and I answered. Your behavior is what I would describe as typical not agitating. You're easy to ignore.

I have never met an individual who tells everyone what they are, what state of mind they are in, what they are thinking,, and throws it around like it's a surgeon's report, after an ECG and brain scan... until I conversed with @It Aint Necessarily So.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have never met an individual who tells everyone what they are, what state of mind they are in, what they are thinking,, and throws it around like it's a surgeon's report, after an ECG and brain scan... until I conversed with @It Aint Necessarily So.

Funny. I see theists, creationists in particular, on this board act like that all the time.

 

[nPeace]

You're both taking this much too personally. What's your objection? That I don't respect what you consider sacred? Do you think that I should censor such opinions because they offend you? If so, why? Your emotional reactions are your responsibility to manage and police, not mine. Keep your opinions about what you object to in me to yourselves if you can, and we'll be just fine. If that's going to be a problem for you, maybe you two should put me on ignore.

Interestingly, you are telling us what we should do, and not do, while you do what you are telling us we should not do.
What do we call that?
When we tell you what you are doing, you complain that we should not do that. Huh?

The only one here all emotional, is you. That's why you run off on a tangent, and preach judgment.

 

[Kfox]

Blind faith is effectively, wishing.

The problem with faith, is though it doesnt have to be blind, those who practice blind faith don't call it blind faith, they just call it faith making it indistinguishable from the faith that isn't blind. Perhaps a different word should be used to distinguish the two.

 

[dybmh]

I have never met an individual who tells everyone what they are, what state of mind they are in, what they are thinking,, and throws it around like it's a surgeon's report, after an ECG and brain scan... until I conversed with @It Aint Necessarily So.

Agreed. It's an extreme example of what I consider typical in a specific category.

 

[dybmh]

Funny. I see theists, creationists in particular, on this board act like that all the time.

Please reread the details in the post you are replying to:

I have never met an individual who tells everyone what they are, what state of mind they are in, what they are thinking,, and throws it around like it's a surgeon's report, after an ECG and brain scan... until I conversed with @It Aint Necessarily So.

• What they are
• Their state of mind
• What they are thinking

That ^^ doesn't happen by creationists. They don't act like they have magical ESP.

 

[nPeace]

The problem with faith, is though it doesnt have to be blind, those who practice blind faith don't call it blind faith, they just call it faith making it indistinguishable from the faith that isn't blind. Perhaps a different word should be used to distinguish the two.

I refer to the the latter simply as blind belief, because persons just believe with no evidence or basis for doing so. I had a thread on that called "Just Believe", but it seems to have been deleted.
There is no such thing as "blind faith". That's probably coined by atheists.

 

[PureX]

We're not talking about intellect value, we're talking about whether or not it is reasonable to believe something will happen

There is no need whatever to 'believe' that something will happen. In fact, to do so would be quite illogical since we cannot ever know what will happen in the future.

All we need to do is decide what course of action we trust to result in a positive outcome. And that will depend on any number of considerations. Once we drop all this belief nonsense it all becomes quite clear, and quite relative.

 

[Will Due]

Where do you put your faith

In God the Universal Father, the Father in Heaven, and that I am his son.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem with faith, is though it doesnt have to be blind, those who practice blind faith don't call it blind faith, they just call it faith making it indistinguishable from the faith that isn't blind. Perhaps a different word should be used to distinguish the two.

how about "superstition"?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have never met an individual who tells everyone what they are, what state of mind they are in, what they are thinking,, and throws it around like it's a surgeon's report, after an ECG and brain scan... until I conversed with @It Aint Necessarily So.

If you can find fault in those judgments, then make your counter-argument. You're probably referring to the matter I just described to your buddy. I guess you don't like that opinion either. So sorry about that, but I'm sure you'll pull through. But it doesn't matter to others that you chose to be offended by being disbelieved. It's not a reason for me to censor that opinion, that you might be offended. Deal with it with dignity. Either rebut it if you think its wrong and you can provide supporting evidence for that position, or just accept that you can't and that I just might be correct.

This other way some of you have for dealing with contradiction - objecting like you did here again rather than rebutting - is foreign to me. I don't know why you can't get past being disbelieved or why it still incites an emotional reaction. Get over it. You and I disagree about everything we have discussed, but only you respond like this, calling in reinforcements for consolation and commiserating with him over how much you disapprove of my posting.

Interestingly, you are telling us what we should do, and not do, while you do what you are telling us we should not do.

I'm telling you that your emotional responses to having your beliefs challenged are your responsibility, not mine. Not surprisingly, you ignored the content of that post. Until you answer, I'll assume you disagree and consider that my responsibility - that I should be careful not to challenge your beliefs lest your feeling be bruised rather than you modifying your reaction. That's what your silence suggests. If so, maybe you should rethink that.

What we are seeing being played out here is the result of the rise of atheism with a series of best-selling books by the so-called neoatheists making atheism more tenable and socially acceptable, and of a platform that has arisen in my lifetime for people like me to begin presenting counterarguments to the long unchallenged claims of Abrahamism in Western culture.

Believers aren't accustomed to these kinds of answers, which they understand as rebellion, insolence and a mean-spirited attack on what they consider sacred. I understand, but I can't help you without betraying my own values and sacred beliefs, so you'll need to either go on feeling that way or make an attitude adjustment, because this wave is cresting now in the States, having already eroded away the religious stronghold in Europe and the rest of the English-speaking world and getting ready to do the same again for secular Americans who simply don't want these intrusive religions affecting their lives at all.

"The problem with being privileged your whole life is that because you have had that privilege for so long, equality starts to look like oppression." - Mark Caddo

• What they are
• Their state of mind
• What they are thinking

That ^^ doesn't happen by creationists. They don't act like they have magical ESP.

They don't? How many times have I been told that what I want is to go out and live hedonistically without accountability, or that I hate God. Most creationists don't think about such matters beyond attributing the behavior of skeptics to demons or atheistic immorality.

 

[Little Dragon]

I know that hunger, thirst, love, a sense of right and wrong, are all real.

Hunger and thirst are measurable. Dehydration causes the brain to interpret that as thirst. Again electrochemical signals, in the brain.
Right and wrong are imaginary concepts, abstract, fabrications.