Logic has nothing to do with it because the concepts aren't dual. One can exist without the other, that was the point. We do indeed place them as opposites aesthetically when both exist, though. I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing here.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would you buy it?
- Thread starter Meow Mix
- Start date
Logic has nothing to do with it because the concepts aren't dual. One can exist without the other, that was the point. We do indeed place them as opposites aesthetically when both exist, though. I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing here.
That's fine with me UV, I don't have a problem with people believing something because it works for them. I'm just curious about what theists who do believe they have the truth have as a justifier for their ontological claims. If you're not one of those then we're square
I will actually, should someone prevent valid justification. Don't mistake me for someone who's asking loaded questions or who's just asking for answers so I can beat them down. I may be an atheist, and some atheists may engage in such tactics, but I'm here to discuss because I want to know the truth -- not to get a superiority complex.
If a god exists I want to know about it, and be rationally justified in believing it. I would indeed be surprised if a justification is forthcoming solely because I've searched for many years of my life but I can't deny truth if it's before me; nor would I try to close my eyes to it.
The reason I even became an atheist is because I couldn't deny that my belief was irrational when I was a Christian. I desperately wanted to keep believing, but I couldn't find a good way to justify it. My turn to atheism is an example of me taking a position that I didn't want because I was forced to. It can happen again; in fact easier the other way because I want a God to exist. I'm just not in the business of believing things because I "want" them to be true. I want to know, I want to rationally believe. If God exists then He knows that and I'm confident He'll get me what I'm looking for before I expire. So, I keep looking.
I would be forced to accept a valid justification even if I didn't like it. It's happened before. It's how I became an atheist.
Rationality does, though. Presuppositionalism is irrational.
This isn't the epistemic context of the word "justification," which is the one I am asking for. I should perhaps have been more clear. Justification in epistemology is that which gives a belief warrant to believe rationally.
You're just looking into an irrelevant part of the analogy though. The analogy has to do with unjustified attributes being ascribed to something -- unjustified ontology, essentially.
The point of an analogy is to use something different but with similar attributes to make a point. You have missed that point.
Gloone
Well-Known Member
I understand exactly what you are trying to say, and I’m telling you that its not even remotely possible to relate Jesus or religion to a stupid box and say it does x,y,z. You have developed a misconception of theism and I have already told you that theism is not the same as paganism and idolatry, but you insist on using that same broken down analogy for an argument against theism.
You might as well go out and buy a freaking hex doll and tell it how much you hate religion, because all you seem to be doing is mocking something you don’t have to slightest clue about.
BTW: At first I thought your argument was kind of cute because you were wanting something to be justified that can’t be justified and has nothing to do with theism, but now you have done lit my fire, so thanks! I really appreciate.
Last edited:
Okay, and my question from the OP is how theism differs from the analogy. If you believe it does, can you explain what's different and how?
The intent isn't to mock, and I know quite a bit about theistic beliefs of various stripes. Please don't make assumptions about where I'm coming from or what my intentions are, especially if what you're assuming is contrary to my stated intentions. That isn't very polite. I'm sorry if you perceived it as mockery.
Hopefully it's a friendly conversation sort of fire.
What is different about theism and belief in the box? How is forming beliefs about the box different from beliefs about theism? What mechanisms are different?
Midnight Pete
Well-Known Member
I don't deny that my belief in God is irrational. It's not supposed to be rational.
That's fine then, you are completely free to do so if you want. My requests for justification are for those who suppose that it is rational.
I do have a curiosity on why anyone would believe something irrationally though, and why they choose that thing over any other irrational thing, and why they most likely excercise reason in most other aspects of life. Do you want to talk about those questions?
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
How do you do it? I could never believe something irrational while knowing that my belief was irrational. If a billionare offered me 10 million dollars if I would start believing in Santa Clause, I never could REALLY believe it. I could lie, but that is all I could do. Truely believing something seems to require the idea that the belief is rational.
Well, you have seemed to disproved that. How do believe something while knowing your belief is irrational?
I second this question. It's relevant to me.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
You know... I know my faith is irrational... but I still have it.
I'm not 100% sure why... but I tend to think religious faith is partially genetic. (like much of our behavior)
wa:do
I'm not 100% sure why... but I tend to think religious faith is partially genetic. (like much of our behavior)
wa:do
Yes, what is it based on then? What justifies theism?
.
Because every time I ask it, theists respond with red herrings and beat around the bush. I'd be hesitant to point out that you've participated in this as well at the risk of sounding rude, but it does appear that way to me.
"Need I say more?" Obviously, since I keep asking and never get a response that isn't a red herring or ignoratio elenchi or some other fallacy.
Please, I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just asking again: PLEASE try to avoid red herrings and the like, and PLEASE just answer the question straightforwardly; what is the justification for theism then?
If it's not based on superstition then what rational thing is it based on?
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
Thanks. The answer to this question may say a whole lot about why people are religious. Who know.
Dan4reason
Facts not Faith
What I think is happening is that your beliefs are being controlled by your emotions. You must realize that what you feel to be right is not always right. I suggest that you use your rational faculty to challenge your emotional assumptions and interrogate your beliefs.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Oh I challenge my beliefs quite often. But I can't shake the faith, I can't be an atheist no matter how much I try.
wa:do
What makes you choose your beliefs rather than any other irrational belief?
Believing irrationally is to believe without justification or rational process, what's the difference between that an flipping a coin or tossing a dart to choose what to believe?
Is it just that your belief contains things that you personally like, in which case you believe not because you think it's true but because it's what you like?
Just trying to understand.